Intrastromal corneal ring segment SK implantation for moderate to severe keratoconus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the efficacy and safety of intrastromal corneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation using a femtosecond laser in the management of advanced keratoconus. SETTING: Private laser center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHOD: In this retrospective nonrandomized study, Intacs SK ICRS were implanted using an IntraLase femtosecond laser in eyes with moderate to severe keratoconus. Evaluation included uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuity, manifest refraction, slitlamp examination, corneal topography, and wavefront analysis of higher-order aberrations. Postoperative visits were at 1, 7, and 30 days and 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: The study evaluated 10 eyes of 8 patients with a mean age of 28 years (range 21 to 42 years). The mean UDVA was significantly better 6 months postoperatively than preoperatively (0.66 logMAR +/- 0.21 [SD] versus 1.19 +/- 0.57 logMAR) (P = .004), as was the mean CDVA (0.25 +/- 0.15 logMAR versus 0.51 +/- 0.20 logMAR) (P = .018). The mean spherical equivalent refractive error was -8.08 diopters (D) preoperatively and -5.03 D at 6 months (P = .65); the mean refractive astigmatism, -5.05 D and -3.90 D, respectively (P = .22); and the mean simulated keratometry value, 57.94 D and 50.07 D, respectively (P = .15). The mean total aberration improved significantly, from 13.48 +/- 4.64 mum preoperatively to 9.42 +/- 1.80 mum postoperatively (P = .007). There were no complications. CONCLUSION: Implantation of ICRS for advanced keratoconus was safe and effective, leading to significant improvement in UDVA, CDVA, and total aberrations. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".