Accelerated versus standard corneal collagen crosslinking combined with same day phototherapeutic keratectomy and single intrastromal ring segment implantation for keratoconus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To compare the results of same day transepithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (t-PTK) and single inferior intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) combined with standard versus accelerated corneal collagen crosslinking (CXL) for keratoconus. METHODS: All consecutive progressive keratoconus eyes that underwent standard or accelerated CXL treatment preceded by same day t-PTK and placement of a single inferior ICRS and had 6 and 12 months of follow-up were reviewed retrospectively. Eyes were classified into two groups, the 'standard' and the 'accelerated' group, accordingly. Visual, refractive and topographic data prior to surgery and at 6 and 12 months post-treatment were analysed. RESULTS: Sixteen eyes were included in each of the standard and the accelerated groups. Mean patient age was 27.5±8.5 years and 30.5±10.7 years (p=0.38) in the standard and accelerated groups, respectively. There was a significant improvement in uncorrected distance visual acuity, refractive cylinder and all examined corneal parameters in both groups 12 months postsurgery. The corrected distance visual acuity and manifest refraction spherical equivalent showed a significant improvement after 12 months of follow-up only in the accelerated group. However, mean changes in all evaluated parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A combined treatment of accelerated CXL preceded by same day t-PTK and single ICRS is as effective as the combined treatment using standard CXL for visual rehabilitation in progressive keratoconus.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".