MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073227479 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e318188892c

Thickness Mapping of the Cornea and Epithelium Using Optical Coherence Tomography

2008· article· en· W2073227479 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyCorneaOphthalmologyMedicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To measure corneal and epithelial thickness across four meridians using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) and to compare these measurements between normal non-lens wearers (NLW), rigid gas permeable (RGP) lens wearers, and RGP-wearing keratoconics (KC). METHODS: Both eyes of 60 subjects were measured (20 NLW, nine female:11 male, 27.6 +/- 5.9 years; 20 RGP, 20 female, 23.9 +/- 7.6 years; and 20 KC, seven female:13 male, 32.4 +/- 8.1 years). A customized fixation target employing LEDs in eight directions of gaze was attached to the OCT and corneal images obtained. Raw OCT scans were analyzed to yield values for corneal and epithelial thickness and color-coded maps were compiled. RESULTS: Central corneal thickness (CCT) was thinnest in KC (447 +/- 68 microm) and similar between RGP (518 +/- 32 microm; pKC < 0.001) and NLW (517 +/- 21 microm) (p(KC) < 0.001 NLW pRGP > 0.05). Peripheral corneal thickness in NLW was thickest in the superior temporal and thinnest in the inferior (I) regions (superior temporal(thickest) vs. I(thinnest) p < 0.001). Central epithelial thickness was thinnest in KC (44 +/- 7 microm), followed by RGP (50 +/- 4 microm), then NLW (54 +/- 2 microm) (pKC < 0.001 NLW p(RGP) < 0.05). Central epithelial thickness in the KC group was significantly thinner than in the RGP group (p < 0.001). In the NLW group, peripheral epithelial thickness was thicker (63 +/- 5 microm) than central (p < 0.001) and was thickest in the superior (S) region and thinnest in the inferior (I) region (S(thickest) vs. I(thinnest) p < 0.001). KC epithelium was thinnest in the inferior temporal meridian (42 +/- 5 microm). CONCLUSIONS: Thickness of the normal cornea and epithelium was greatest in the superior region. In all groups, the inferior cornea and epithelium was thinnest, and to a greater extent in the KC group.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it