Boston Type 1 KPro ‐ Multicenter study outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To report indications and outcomes from a multicenter study on the Boston Type 1 keratoprosthesis (Kpro). Methods Kpro data was collected and analyzed at a central collection site. Kpro survival and visual acuity are the main outcomes measured. Results 324 Boston Type 1 Kpro implants (310 patients) from 19 surgeons were included. The average age was 63.2±18.7 years, 47.6% female, 53.0% right eyes. The average number of penetrating keratoplasties (PKP) prior to kPro insertion was 1.9±1.5 (range 1‐8). Pre‐operative diagnosis was divided into 3 different categories: “chemical” (32 eyes), “autoimmune” (39 eyes with either Stevens Johnson Syndrome [SJS] or Ocular Cicatricial Pemphigoid [OCP]), “other” (n=188), and “unknown etiology” (n=65). The mean preoperative logMAR visual acuity was 1.77±0.62 (48.1%; n=156 eyes); 32.4% hand motion and 14.2% of light perception. Average follow‐up time was 16.3±14.6 months (range 0.7 – 59.4). The overall retention rate was 92.0% (n=298). Median survival time (months) was 60.9 (autoimmune), 99.1 (chemical), & 139.3 (other). The median survival time for patients with autoimmune disease was significantly lower than for other diagnoses (p<0.0001). Among eyes with at least 1 year of follow‐up (135 eyes), overall Kpro retention was 90.4%. Mean visual acuity (n=151 eyes) was significantly improved to 0.78±0.58 logMAR units after one year of follow‐up (p<0.0001). The retention rate observed in autoimmune patients (71.8%, p<0.0001) followed by chemical (93.8%), “other” (93.1%) & “unknown” (100%). Conclusion The Boston Type 1 KPro appears to be a viable option for eyes that are not candidates for PKP however caution should be used in eyes with a history of SJS or OCP.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".