Systemic Immunosuppression in High-Risk Penetrating Keratoplasty: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cornea transplantation has a high success rate and typically only requires topical immunomodulation. However, in high-risk cases, systemic immunosuppression can be used. We conducted a systematic review on the efficacy and side effects of systemic immunosuppression for high-risk cornea transplantation. The study population was 18 years old or older with a high-risk transplant (two or more clock hours of cornea vascularization or a previous failed graft or a graft needed because of herpes simplex keratitis). A comprehensive search strategy was performed with the help of an information specialist and content experts from ophthalmology. All study designs were accepted for assessment. Level 1 and level 2 screening was performed by two reviewers followed by data abstraction. Forest plots were created whenever possible to synthesize treatment effects. Quality assessment was done with a Downs and Blacks score. From 1,150 articles, 29 were ultimately used for data abstraction. The odds ratios (ORs) for clear graft survival in cyclosporine and controls were 2.43 (95% CI: 1.00 - 5.88) and 3.64 (95% CI: 1.48 - 8.91) for rejection free episodes. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) significantly improved the rejection free graft survival rates at 1 year (OR: 4.05, 95% CI: 1.83 - 8.96). The overall results suggested that both systemic cyclosporine and MMF improved 1-year rejection free graft survival in high-risk keratoplasty. Cyclosporine also significantly improved clear graft survival rates at 1 year; however, there were insufficient data to analyze the same in the MMF group. Higher quality studies are needed to understand this issue better.
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 | 0.047 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".