MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031380244 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e3181c58f32

Optical Coherence Tomography Anatomy of the Corneal Endothelial Transplantation Wound

2010· article· en· W2031380244 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis Alvarez Ferré, Ossama Nada, Denis Sherknies, Hélène Boisjoly, Isabelle Brunette

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyOphthalmologyMedicineTransplantationCorneal transplantationTomographyAnatomyCorneaSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to prospectively assess the deep lamellar endothelial keratoplasty (DLEK) wound anatomy and its evolution during the 12 months after surgery, using optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: The eyes of 8 patients (1 eye per patient) who consecutively underwent DLEK for Fuchs dystrophy or pseudophakic bullous keratopathy were prospectively studied before and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. The Stratus OCT apparatus (Carl Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) was used to acquire central and radial scans perpendicular to the wound at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-o'clock positions. The following parameters were analyzed: central total thickness, posterior donor-recipient edges gap, donor-recipient height mismatch, tissue compression, and graft detachment. RESULTS: A posterior gap was observed in 4 of the 8 DLEK eyes. At 12 months, the mean gap contour, depth, and width were 242 +/- 67, 101 +/- 45, and 87 +/- 29 microm, respectively. A step was documented in all DLEK eyes (average step height 108 +/- 24 microm). A micrograft detachment was observed in one case and tissue compression in another. In all corneas, the mean central corneal thickness returned to normal range and almost normal anatomy with time after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: OCT was found to be a very useful tool for DLEK corneal wound architecture analysis. It revealed microscopic wound irregularities and allowed their quantitative follow-up with time.

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 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 score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207