Simple Preoperative Ink Test as a Novel Adjunct to Intrastromal Keratopigmentation for Post-laser Peripheral Iridotomy Dysphotopsias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a simple preoperative ink test as a novel adjunct to intrastromal keratopigmentation for post-laser peripheral iridotomy (LPI) dysphotopsias. METHODS: A surgical marking pen is applied to the area over a peripheral iridotomy before intrastromal keratopigmentation. The patient can then assess whether there is any improvement in their symptoms of dysphotopsias. Manual intrastromal keratopigmentation can then be performed using a crescent blade into the clear cornea at 50% depth and tunneled centrally to create a pocket ensuring that the peripheral iridotomy is fully occluded. The crescent blade is coated with an alcohol-based commercially available black tattoo pigment, and the pocket is filled. RESULTS: We have used the preoperative ink marker test on 5 eyes in patients with post-LPI (4 temporal and 1 superior) dysphotopsias before performing intrastromal keratopigmentation, with good patient satisfaction. Patients report immediate symptomatic relief after the procedure. This ink marking technique can also be extended to help identify which iris defect is symptomatic in patients with multiple iris defects. CONCLUSIONS: The preoperative ink test before intrastromal keratopigmentation is a novel adjunct to the treatment of post-LPI dysphotopsias.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".