Intracorneal Ring Segment Explantation After Intracorneal Ring Segment Implantation Combined With Same-Day Corneal Collagen Crosslinking in Keratoconus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the outcome and the reversibility of refractive outcomes after intrastromal corneal ring segment (ICRS) explantation in patients with keratoconus treated with ICRS implantation and same-day collagen crosslinking (CXL). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of ICRS explantation in 3 eyes of 3 patients with keratoconus that had undergone femtosecond laser-enabled placement of paired ICRS (Intacs) with same-day CXL by a single surgeon between 2008 and 2011. The main outcome measures included baseline/preexplantation/postexplantation visual acuity, refractive error, keratometry, and higher order aberrations. RESULTS: None of the patients lost best-corrected distance visual acuity lines. ICRS can be safely and easily explanted from keratoconic eyes with previous CXL. Some of the topographic benefits gained from ICRS implantation may persist after explantation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the reversal of refractive outcomes, the preservation of topographic changes may occur in some cases after the explantation of 1 or both the segments in patients with keratoconus treated with ICRS implantation with same-day CXL.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".