Transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy for low to moderate myopia in comparison with conventional photorefractive keratectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness, safety and stability of the results of transepithelial photorefractive keratectomy (tPRK) with conventional photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) for low to moderate myopia. METHODS: In this prospective non-randomized case-control study, patients with low to moderate myopia were assigned to the tPRK group (cases) or the PRK group (controls). In the tPRK group, eyes were treated using the Amaris excimer laser (SCHWIND eye-tech-solutions GmbH and Co. KG, Germany). Outcome measures included postoperative pain using McGill Pain Questionnaire, epithelial healing time, uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), manifest refraction, and safety and efficacy indexes which were compared between the study groups. RESULTS: < 0.01 for both comparisons). CONCLUSION: Transepithelial PRK seems to be superior to conventional PRK for treatment of low to moderate myopia in terms of postoperative pain, epithelial healing time, visual recovery and safety and efficacy indexes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".