Cross-Linking and Intracorneal Ring Segments—Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review and summarize relevant studies on combined use of corneal crosslinking and intracorneal ring segments (ICRS) for the treatment of corneal ectasia. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the key words "corneal collagen cross-linking" and "intra-corneal ring segments." RESULTS: Crosslinking is a well-accepted treatment option for corneal ectasia and can be combined with corneal ICRS insertion as needed. The advent of crosslinking has dramatically reduced the number of corneal transplants performed for patients with keratoconus or postrefractive ectasia. Intracorneal ring segments, although flatten the corneal surface, do not prevent the progression of corneal ectasia. This is why the combination of crosslinking and ICRS is potentially synergistic. Previous studies reported that combining these two complementary interventions has been shown to be safe and effective. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of ICRS are enhanced and stabilized by crosslinking, but the ideal combined technique is not known at present.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".