Combined Use of Superficial Keratectomy and Subconjunctival Bevacizumab Injection for Corneal Neovascularization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the effect of superficial keratectomy combined with subconjunctival bevacizumab injection in 2 cases of corneal neovascularization (NV). METHODS: An interventional case series was undertaken on 2 patients with corneal NV: 1 due to sclerokeratitis secondary to rheumatoid arthritis and the other due to Terrien marginal degeneration. Both patients underwent superficial keratectomy combined with subconjunctival bevacizumab injection (2.5 mg/0.1 mL). RESULTS: Corneal NV regressed with the surgical removal and showed no signs of recurrence after 3 months of follow-up. Both patients reported dramatic subjective improvement in their vision within 1-2 weeks. Best corrected visual acuity improved in 1 patient. CONCLUSION: The combination of superficial keratectomy with subconjunctival injection of bevacizumab may offer a new strategy for the treatment of superficial corneal NV.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".