Subconjunctival Bevacizumab Injection for Corneal Neovascularization in Recurrent Pterygium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report on the use of subconjunctival bevacizumab on corneal vessel density in recurrent pterygia. METHODS: The charts of 5 patients with recurrent pterygium, who received subconjunctival injections of bevacizumab (2.5 mg/0.1 ml) were retrospectively reviewed. Ophthalmic evaluation included Snellen visual acuity (VA), tonometry and complete examination before the injection and at 1 week and 1 and 3 months thereafter. Digital photographs of the eyes were analyzed by image analysis software to determine the area of cornea covered by new vessels as a percentage of the total corneal area. RESULTS: No ocular or systemic adverse events were observed. No change in visual acuity was noted in any patient following the injection. The mean change in corneal vascularization after one bevacizumab injection was 0.03%+/-0.45, while after two injections the change was 0.025%+/-0.19 (both not statistically different than zero, t-test). CONCLUSIONS: Short-term results suggest that subconjunctival bevacizumab is well tolerated but does not cause regression of corneal vessels in recurrent pterygium.
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) | 0.000 | 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".