Topical Treatment With 1% Cyclosporine for Subepithelial Infiltrates Secondary to Adenoviral Keratoconjunctivitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".