Two Cases of a Penetrating Keratoplasty With Tissue From a Donor Who Had Undergone LASIK Surgery
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report two cases of penetrating keratoplasty using tissue from a donor who had undergone laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery before its transplantation. PARTICIPANTS: Two patients who had penetrating keratoplasties and received donor corneas from eyes that had previous LASIK. INTERVENTION: The two patients underwent corneal transplantation by two different surgeons who were unaware that the donor eyes had previous LASIK treatment. RESULTS: Penetrating keratoplasty was completed without complication in both cases, although a separation of the corneal lamellae was noted during surgery in one of the cases. The two patients are doing well at 5.5 months postsurgery. CONCLUSION: With the increasing popularity of laser refractive surgery, eye banks should increase their awareness and refine screening techniques to rule out refractive surgery in the donor corneas. The long-term follow-up of those patients will reveal if surgical success was compromised by prior refractive surgery.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it