Incision Separation After Eye Rubbing on a Postradial Keratotomy Cornea: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case report is to explore the diagnosis and the treatment of a complication secondary to a radial keratotomy (RK) surgery. It illustrates the fact that, even more than 20 years after the procedure, corneas that underwent RK procedures may still be at risk for complications. METHODS: The patient was seen in emergency department in September 2008 for a red and painful eye. Examination revealed a separation of one RK incision consequent to heavy eye rubbing. Treatment initiated for this condition is similar to treatment of minor corneal erosion and is explained. RESULTS: After intensive lubrication, the condition healed in 2 weeks, without further complications. CONCLUSION: It is shown that patients after RK remain at risk for corneal complications over the years after their initial surgical procedures. Patients should be educated about the fragility of their cornea and globe and to do not rub their eyes. Eye care practitioners should reinforce these messages periodically. A close follow-up of post-RK patients is needed to keep these patients in optimal ocular health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".