MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790356894 · doi:10.1016/j.jcro.2018.01.001

Accelerated corneal crosslinking to treat Acanthamoeba and Fusarium coinfection of the cornea

2018· article· en· W2790356894 on OpenAlexaff
Mattia Passilongo, Emilio Pedrotti, Pietro Maria Talli, Francesco Comacchio, Adriano Fasolo, Erika Bonacci, Tommaso Merz, Jacopo Bonetto, Sara Ficial, Giorgio Marchini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery Online Case Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsOntario Universities’ Application Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCorneaAcanthamoebaAcanthamoeba keratitisCoinfectionOphthalmologyKeratitisMicrobiologyVirologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 44-year-old man presented with Acanthamoeba and Fusarium coinfection keratitis. Fifteen years before, he had hyperopic laser in situ keratomileusis, and the coinfection was under the flap. The keratitis was nonresponsive to topical and systemic therapy; therefore, accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) with photoactivated riboflavin (photoactivated chromophore for keratitis) was performed to prevent a corneal perforation. After the treatment, there was unexpected rapid corneal melting with subsequent perforation. A reconstructive penetrating keratoplasty was promptly performed and was effective in resolving the coinfection. The current protocol for the application of photoactivated riboflavin CXL should be improved, and clinical criteria for applying this technique are required. Photoactivated riboflavin CXL might be an effective alternative to conventional agents in some cases of fungal and/or amoeba keratitis. However, in cases of deep stromal infections on previous surgically treated anterior stroma, it should not be considered a viable option.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery Online Case ReportsSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207