Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of collagen cross-linking in the treatment of late-onset bleb leakage. METHODS: A retrospective, interventional case-series. Cross-linking was performed for late-onset bleb leakage after failure of standard medical therapy. Primary outcome is measured by complete resolution of bleb leakage. Secondary outcomes including intraocular pressure and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) were documented over 1 year and were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA. RESULTS: Seven patients underwent cross-linking for bleb leakage between 2012 and 2013. Five (71%) had complete resolution of bleb leakage. Intraocular pressure improved from 3.9±1.0 to 7.4±1.1 mm Hg at 1 to 2 months (P=0.0003) and remained at 9.6±3.0 mm Hg at final visit (P=0.06). The corresponding CDVA also improved from 0.6±0.2 to 0.38±0.37 logMAR (P=0.0069) at 1 to 2 months before stabilizing at 0.38±0.44 (P=0.0021) at 1 year. Two cases (29%) had persistent bleb leakage after treatment. Four patients (57%) had resolved hypotony (≥6 mm Hg) at final visit. No adverse event was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Collagen cross-linking is a noninvasive treatment offering reasonable success rate for filtering bleb leakage, and may spare patients invasive surgical bleb revisions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".