Keratometry and Axial Length in Pigment Dispersion Syndrome: A Descriptive Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma are characterized by loss of pigment from the posterior surface of the iris due to reverse pupillary block. This may be due to an anomalous relation between the position of the globe within the orbit, the axial length of the globe, and the corneal curvature. The authors compared axial length, keratometry, and exophthalmometry in patients with pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma and in healthy controls. METHODS: Thirteen pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma and 17 controls underwent refraction, keratometry, A-scan and exophthalmometry. Patients with pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma were selected in a university glaucoma practice, and controls were selected for their age and refraction from the staff of the hospital. Both groups were comparable in age and refraction. RESULTS: Mean age of pigment dispersion syndrome patients and healthy controls was 46.54 and 41.82 years (P = 0.30), respectively, and mean refraction (spherical equivalent) was -4.53 and -4.32 diopters, (P = 0.84), respectively. No statistical differences were noted in axial length measured with A-scan (25.98 and 25.14, P = 0. 15) or anterior chamber depth and lens thickness. The pigment dispersion syndrome and pigmentary glaucoma group had flatter keratometry than the myopic controls. Mean keratometry was 42.39 +/- 1.77 and 44.34 +/- 1.50 (P = 0.003), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results show that patients with pigment dispersion syndrome have flatter keratometry of approximately 2 diopters compared with age-matched myopic controls. This finding suggests a difference in architecture of the anterior segment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".