MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319591233 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e318255eac4

Ocular Surface Stem Cell Transplantation Rejection

2012· article· en· W2319591233 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunosuppressionAniridiaTransplantationIncidence (geometry)DemographicsVisual acuitySurgeryGraft rejectionOphthalmologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To describe the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, treatment, and outcomes of ocular surface stem cell transplantation (OSST) rejection. METHODS: A chart review of patients who had OSST at a single institution between 1998 and 2010 was performed. Data were collected on patient demographics, type of OSST procedure, duration of immunosuppression, and rejection characteristics. Main outcome measures were ocular surface stability and improvement in best-corrected visual acuity. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two eyes of 158 patients were included with mean follow-up of 62.7 months (range, 12.0-158.3 months). The most common indications for OSST were aniridia (46.4%), chemical/thermal injury (22.1%), and Stevens-Johnson syndrome (12.2%). The most common procedures performed were keratolimbal allograft (KLAL) alone (80.6%) and combined living-related conjunctival allograft (lr-CLAL)-KLAL (11.3%). Mean time on immunosuppression was 44.3 months (range, 7.6-138.2 months). Severe rejection occurred in 43 eyes (19.4%) with mean time to rejection being 15.2 months (range, 0.2-93.1 months). Low-grade rejection occurred in 26 eyes (11.7%) with mean time to rejection being 26.2 months (range, 1.3-64.9 months). At the final follow-up, 36.6% of eyes in the rejection group achieved a stable ocular surface compared with 71.9% of eyes in the nonrejection group (P < 0.0001). Risk factors associated with increased risk of rejection were younger age (P < 0.0001), KLAL alone (P = 0.049), and noncompliance with immunosuppression (P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular surface outcomes for patients with OSST rejection are poor, with the majority of patients having failed ocular surfaces despite treatment with increased immunosuppression and repeat OSST. It is critical for success that OSST patients are closely monitored for rejection and for compliance with immunosuppression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it