Photorefractive keratectomy in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) in pediatric patients who fail traditional methods of treatment for myopic anisometropic amblyopia and high myopia. SETTING: Nonhospital surgical facility with follow-up in a hospital clinic setting. METHODS: Photorefractive keratectomy was performed in 40 eyes of 27 patients. The patients were divided into 4 groups based on the type of myopia: myopic anisometropic amblyopia (15 eyes/13 patients), bilateral high myopia (20 eyes/10 patients), high myopia post-penetrating keratoplasty (3 eyes/2 patients), and combined corneal scarring and anisometropic amblyopia (2 eyes/2 patients). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia using the VISX 20/20 B laser and a multizone, multipass ablation technique. Appropriate corneal fixation was achieved with appropriate head positioning (turn and tilt) and an Arrowsmith fixation ring. Myopia was as high as -25.00 diopter (D) spherical equivalent (SE), but no treatment was for more than -17.50 D SE. RESULTS: The mean SE decreased from -10.68 D to -1.37 D at 1 year, a mean change of -9.31 D. At 1 year, the mean best corrected visual acuity improved from 20/70 to 20/40 in the entire group. Forty percent of eyes were within +/-1.0 D of the targeted refraction. There was no haze in 59.5% of eyes. Three eyes initially had 3+ haze; 1 improved to 2+ and 2 required repeat PRK with significant haze reduction. Five eyes (3 patients) with greater than -17.00 D SE myopia before PRK (range -17.50 to -25.00 D) had 3.42 D more effect than predicted (range 0.50 to 5.50 D). A functional vision survey demonstrated a positive effect on the children's ability to function in their environments after the laser treatment. CONCLUSION: Photorefractive keratectomy in children represents another method of providing long-term resolution of bilateral high myopia and myopic anisometropic amblyopia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".