Effect of Lid Debridement‐Scaling in Sjögren Syndrome Dry Eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of lid debridement-scaling (LDS) on dry eye signs and symptoms in subjects with Sjögren syndrome (SS). METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled study enrolled 14 female subjects with SS. Seven subjects were randomized into the treatment group where they were selected to receive LDS; the remainder did not receive LDS and served as control subjects. Lid debridement-scaling was conducted using a stainless steel golf club spud (Hilco Wilson Ophthalmics, Plainville, MA) on both the upper and lower eyelids of both eyes. Outcome variables were assessed before LDS and again 1 month later. The outcome variables were the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Symptom Assessment iN Dry Eye (SANDE) visual analog scores, ocular staining (SICCA OSS [Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance Ocular Staining Score]), fluorescein tear breakup time (FLBUT), meibomian gland score (MGS), meibomian gland yielding liquid secretions (MGYLS) score, and line of Marx's (LOM) position. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects completed the study. Data from only the right eye were analyzed. For the control group (n = 6; mean [± SD] age, 62.3 [± 11.6] years), the pre-LDS, post-LDS, and significance level (pre-LDS mean [± SD] vs. post-LDS mean [± SD]; p value) were as follows: OSDI (58.3 [± 22.1] vs. 48.3 [± 29.0]; p = 0.051), SANDE (77.4 [± 22.1] vs. 89.6 [± 32.6]; p = 0.20), SICCA OSS (7.0 [± 4.5] vs. 8.2 [± 3.5]; p = 0.25), MGS (1.3 [± 1.5] vs. 1.0 [± 0.9]; p = 0.75), MGYLS (0.3 [± 0.5] vs. 0.0 [± 0.0]; p = 0.50), FLBUT (2.99 [± 1.54] vs. 2.85 [± 1.79]; p = 0.63), and LOM (2.0 [± 0.0] vs. 2.0 [± 0.0]; p = n/a). For the treatment group (n = 7; mean [± SD] age, 58.0 [± 8.1] years), the pre-LDS, post-LDS, and significance level were as follows: OSDI (63.2 [± 13.3] vs. 46.9 [± 19.4]; p = 0.04), SANDE (72.6 [± 17.1] vs. 77.0 [± 28.0]; p = 0.54), SICCA OSS (6.6 [± 2.9] vs. 5.0 [± 3.9]; p = 0.02), MGS (1.0 [± 1.2] vs. 3.1 [± 1.7]; p = 0.01), MGYLS (0.0 [± 0.0] vs. 0.6 [± 1.0]; p = 0.50), FLBUT (3.13 [± 0.81] vs. 3.45 [± 1.03]; p = 0.53), and LOM (0.9 [± 0.9] vs. 1.0 [± 1.0]; p = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study showed that LDS improved symptoms, ocular staining, and meibomian gland function for the group that received LDS. This indicates that LDS can aid in the management of SS dry eye.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".