Histopathologic Study of Corneal Stromal Dystrophies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the frequency and describe the histopathologic features of stromal corneal dystrophies over a 10-year period. METHODS: A single-centered, retrospective analysis was performed on corneal specimens diagnosed as stromal dystrophies retrieved from the Henry C. Witelson Ophthalmic Pathology Laboratory and Registry (Montreal, Canada) over a period of 10 years. Corneal specimens obtained during keratoplasty were subjected to hematoxylin and eosin, periodic acid-Schiff, and other special staining. RESULTS: During the period of the study, 885 corneal specimens from penetrating keratoplasties were received. Twenty-six (2.9%) specimens from a total of 22 patients showed stromal corneal dystrophies: 17 (65.4%) eyes with lattice dystrophy, 5 (19.2%) eyes with combined granular/lattice ("Avellino") dystrophy, 3 (11.5%) eyes with granular dystrophy, and 1 (3.9%) eye with macular dystrophy. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal stromal dystrophies have distinct histopathologic features, which can be diagnosed with routine and special staining, particularly for combined granular/lattice (Avellino) dystrophy. Clinically, combined granular/lattice (Avellino) dystrophy can have features of both lattice and granular dystrophies, which can be misleading for diagnosis. Lattice dystrophy was the most frequent stromal dystrophy in this particular population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".