In Situ Versus Whole-Globe Harvesting of Corneal Tissue From Remote Donor Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There are 2 methods of corneal tissue procurement currently in widespread use: in situ extraction of the corneal button directly to preservation media and whole-globe enucleation of eyes with removal of the button to preservation media at a later time. This study evaluates the effects of these 2 procurement procedures on the initial quality of donor corneal tissue. METHODS: Slit-lamp examination results and endothelial cell counts were compared for a total of 468 donor corneas harvested at 2 remote locations: one where in situ procurement was practiced and the other that used whole-globe enucleation procedures. RESULTS: In both univariate and multivariate analysis, in situ corneas were found to have a lower incidence of moderate or severe haze and folds in Descemet membrane. No differences in mean endothelial cell counts were noted between the 2 populations of donated tissue. CONCLUSIONS: In situ procurement of corneal tissue results in higher initial corneal tissue quality than whole-globe procedures.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".