MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011636476 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e3181c33034

Topical Treatment With 1% Cyclosporine for Subepithelial Infiltrates Secondary to Adenoviral Keratoconjunctivitis

2010· article· en· W2011636476 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeratoconjunctivitisMedicineVernal keratoconjunctivitisDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the treatment with topical 1% cyclosporine A (CsA) in patients with subepithelial corneal infiltrates (SEIs). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 9 patients (12 eyes) before and after the treatment with CsA 1% eyedrops twice daily. All patients had been treated with topical corticosteroids previously without improvement or had to stop the medication secondary to intraocular pressure elevation. The objective data recorded included best-corrected Snellen visual acuity, intraocular pressure, number of medications in use, and evaluation of severity of SEIs (improved, stable, or worse). For their subjective evaluation, patients were asked to complete a questionnaire based on the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: Five males (56%) and 4 females (44%), mean age of 47 +/- 13 years, were included. Mean follow-up on CsA was 13 +/- 7 months. The mean best-corrected Snellen visual acuity (logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution) before and after treatment was 0.42 +/- 0.40 and 21 +/- 0.28, respectively, with no statistically significant improvement. There was statistically significant reduction in the number of medications before and after treatment from 1.88 +/- 1.05 to 1.22 +/- 0.44, respectively (P = 0.049). Six patients (66%) showed clinical improvement, and 3 (34%) were stable during the treatment period. Patients reported statistically significant reduction in the severity of symptoms before and after the treatment. Most of the patients reported no foreign body sensation, glare, or other side effects with topical CsA treatment. Overall, patients noted an improvement in vision and satisfaction with CsA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Topical CsA 1% is a safe and effective alternative treatment in patients with SEIs who do not respond to other treatment modalities or have unwanted side effects from topical steroids.

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.

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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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