Impression Cytologic Analysis After Corneal Collagen Cross-Linking Using Riboflavin and Ultraviolet- A Light in the Treatment of Keratoconus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report impression cytologic (IC) results after corneal cross-linking (CXL) using riboflavin and ultraviolet-A light in the treatment of keratoconus and compare the data with those from a group of subjects with the same disease. METHODS: Forty eyes were distributed into 2 groups: patients in group 1 underwent CXL, whereas patients in group 2 received riboflavin 0.1% eyedrops for 1 month of topical use. IC specimens were obtained from all eyes before treatment and 1 and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 showed a decrease in goblet cell density on the superior conjunctiva after CXL (P = 0.008) but no difference on the temporal conjunctiva or in the cornea. Patients in group 2 demonstrated improvement in cell-to-cell contact of epithelial cells and reduced keratinization on the temporal conjunctiva after treatment (P = 0.003 and P = 0.034, respectively) but no changes on the superior conjunctiva or in the cornea. Fisher exact test comparison of IC total scores after treatment revealed no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite changes in goblet cell density after corneal CXL in the superior conjunctiva and an improvement in the morphology of epithelial cells after the use of riboflavin eyedrops, comparison of total IC scores showed no difference between groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".