A Comparison of Interocular Differences in Patients With Pigment Dispersion Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pigment dispersion syndrome (PDS) and pigmentary glaucoma (PG) are characterized by loss of iris pigment because of reverse pupillary block. The loss of iris pigment is manifested as transillumination defects. Differences in ocular anatomy have been found between subjects with PDS and controls. Our study aims to see if differences in interocular anatomic features are also related to differences in the quantity of transillumination defects between eyes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an observational case series of 30 eyes of 15 subjects with PDS/PG in at least 1 eye. Patients underwent refraction, exophthalmometry, corneal and anterior chamber analysis by Pentacam, biometry, A-scan, ultrasound biomicroscopy, and anterior segment digital photography. RESULTS: The Pentacam mean central radii of the posterior corneal surface (cornea back Rm), vertical central radius of curvature of the posterior corneal surface (cornea back Rv), and keratometric power deviation (influence of the posterior surface of the cornea on refractive power) were statistically different between eyes with greater pigment loss and eyes with lesser pigment loss. Eyes with greater pigment loss had a larger back radius of corneal curvature and a correspondingly numerically smaller keratometric power deviation. Other measurements of ocular anatomy were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A flatter curvature of the posterior corneal surface of the eye is associated with increased pigment loss in PDS and PG. The authors postulate that this could result in a difference in the biomechanical properties of the cornea, increased deformation with blinking, and a pumping action resulting in the reverse pupil block of PDS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".