Evolving Indications for and Trends in Keratoplasty in British Columbia, Canada, From 2002 to 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report the evolving indications for keratoplasty and the shift in the type of keratoplasty performed in British Columbia, Canada, over a 10-year period from 2002 to 2011. METHODS: This was a retrospective database review of all the records of corneal transplant tissues at the Eye Bank of British Columbia, Canada, from January 2002 to December 2011. The patient demographics, indications, and types of transplant performed were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 4843 corneal transplants were performed in 3742 patients (1968 male and 1774 female) from January 2002 to December 2011. The number of keratoplasties performed ranged from 420 in 2008 to 578 in 2011. The top 4 indications over the 10-year period were Fuchs endothelial dystrophy (FED; 18.9%), aphakic/pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (17.4%), regraft (17.1%), and keratoconus (15.5%). Penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) accounted for 86.5% (4191 transplants) of all keratoplasties performed. Since the introduction of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty (DSAEK) in 2007, there was a significant increase in the number of DSAEKs (P < 0.0001) performed and a statistical decline in the number of PKPs (P < 0.0001) performed. Despite only 30 deep anterior lamellar keratoplasties being performed, an increasing trend was observed after 2008 (P = 0.0087). A decreasing trend in PKPs and an increasing trend in DSAEKs were observed for surgeries performed for FED, aphakic/pseudophakic bullous keratopathy, and regraft. CONCLUSIONS: FED has become the top indication for performing a keratoplasty over the 10-year period. There was a shift from PKP to DSAEK performed for endothelial failure. Although the number of deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty surgeries was small, there was a significant increasing trend.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".