MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997548118 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e31812e61e4

Visual Outcome and Rehabilitation in a Case of Bilateral Acanthamoeba Sclerokeratitis

2007· article· en· W1997548118 on OpenAlexaff
Roberto Pineda, Tolga Kocatürk, Ravinder Dennis Bhui

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLegionella and Acanthamoeba research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcanthamoeba keratitisVisual acuityMydriasisOphthalmologyCapsulotomyCataractsSurgeryIRIS (biosensor)Cataract surgeryContact lensIntraocular lens

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report a rare and complicated case of bilateral Acanthamoeba sclerokeratitis (ASK). METHODS: Case report of a 42-year-old patient who was referred to the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary 7 months after a history of culture-confirmed bilateral Acanthamoeba polyphaga sclerokeratitis. At the time of referral to the MEEI, he was noted to have iris neovascularization and chronic mydriasis in both eyes. The anterior chambers were shallow, and there were mature cortical cataracts that obscured the posterior pole in both eyes. His visual acuity in both eyes was limited to hand motions. RESULTS: The patient underwent sequential cataract extraction, penetrating keratoplasty (PK), and yttrium-argon-garnet laser capsulotomy of the right eye over a span of 3 months. This treatment substantially improved the vision in his right eye to 20/400. Cataract extraction surgery and a PK have been scheduled for this patient's left eye in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: Some patients with ASK and apparently poor visual prognosis can achieve substantial visual improvement after anterior-segment surgery. This report describes the management and outcome of only the second reported case of bilateral ASK in the world.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicLegionella and Acanthamoeba researchFrench-language works237,207