High myopia as a risk factor for post-LASIK ectasia: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the case of a patient developing corneal ectasia following LASIK for the correction of myopic astigmatism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 39-year-old man underwent bilateral uneventful LASIK for myopic astigmatism of -10.25 -1.75 ×040 OD and -8.00 -2.50 ×005 OS. Preoperative corneal pachymetry was 542 micrometers OD and 543 micrometers OS. Preoperative corneal topography showed bilateral oblique bow-tie patterns. Central keratometry measurements were 45.12 D @ 124 / 43.87 D @ 34 OD and 44.87 D @ 78 / 43.12 D @ 168 OS. Keratoconus or forme fruste keratoconus were not present preoperatively. RESULTS: The residual stromal bed was 314 micrometers OD and 295 micrometers OS. Increasing astigmatism was documented progressively after LASIK. Central keratometry and topography were performed with evidence of ectasia OD at 17 months post-operatively and early evidence of ectasia OS at last follow-up of 58 months. CONCLUSION: High myopia appears to be a predisposing factor in this patient. High myopia may need to be considered as an ectasia risk factor independent of amount of ablation or residual stromal bed thickness and in the absence of forme fruste keratoconus. The possibility remains that ectasia was due to an unidentified risk factor or an intrinsic corneal problem with this patient's right eye.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".