Central Corneal Thickness and Corneal Diameter in Patients With Childhood Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine and compare the central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal diameter among groups of patients with childhood glaucomas and assess the relationship between CCT and corneal diameter in these patients. DESIGN: A multicenter observational case series using prospective and retrospective data. METHODS: Patients from the Scheie Eye Institute, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Emory and Vanderbilt Medical Centers with childhood glaucomas were eligible to participate. Retrospective data on CCT and corneal diameter of these patients were collected when available; otherwise, patients were asked to return to the ophthalmology clinics for measurements. Patients with corneal edema or central corneal scarring were excluded. One hundred eighty four glaucomatous eyes from 109 patients (median age = 9.0 y; age range = 0 to 60 y) were included. RESULTS: The mean CCT (+/-SE) was 651.1+/-63.5 microm for aphakic, 528.7+/-38.5 microm for Axenfeld-Rieger, and 563.4+/-67.9 microm for 1 degrees infantile eyes. The mean corneal diameter in aphakic, Axenfeld-Rieger, and 1 degrees infantile glaucoma eyes were 11.2+/-1.0, 12.5+/-0.9, and 13.2+/-1.2 mm, respectively. There was a significant difference in CCT and in corneal diameter between aphakic and 1 degrees infantile glaucoma eyes, and between aphakic and Axenfeld-Rieger eyes (P < 0.0001). There was a negative correlation between CCT and corneal diameter in all eyes (r = -0.41, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with aphakic glaucoma are different from those with congenital glaucoma or Axenfeld-Rieger in CCT and corneal diameter. A patient with pediatric glaucoma and a larger corneal diameter was more likely to have a thinner CCT. Attention should be paid to the CCT of patients with childhood glaucomas for interpretation of intraocular pressure.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".