Corneal Densitometry as a Tool to Measure Epithelial Ingrowth After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluates the correlation between corneal densitometry and epithelial ingrowth (EI) after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). METHODS: Corneal densitometry of 3 patients who developed EI after LASIK was measured with the Oculus Pentacam. Corneal densitometry readings of each patient were obtained preoperatively and postoperatively after ingrowth was discovered. Densitometry was recorded at the central nest of opacity and at the leading edges of EI. RESULTS: For all patients, the most severe stages of EI observed on slit-lamp photographs correlated with the highest densitometry readings, with peak densitometry ranging from 73.3 to 95.1. These values were much higher than preoperative densitometry readings, which ranged from 21.8 to 27.2. In 2 cases, the Pentacam densitometry map revealed progression of EI toward the visual axis that was only faintly detectable or not detectable at all on the corresponding slit-lamp photographs. CONCLUSIONS: Corneal densitometry seems to be an objective measure of the severity and progression of EI after LASIK.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".