MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941666953 · doi:10.1097/icu.0000000000000570

Update on Bowman layer transplantation

2019· review· en· W2941666953 on OpenAlexaff
C. Maya Tong, Konine van Dijk, Gerrit R.J. Melles

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationLayer (electronics)Internal medicineNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bowman layer transplantation is a novel technique that may stabilize progressive ectatic corneal changes in eyes with keratoconus, which are too steep or too thin for ultraviolet corneal crosslinking or intracorneal ring segments. In this way, patients can maintain stable vision with contact lenses, and avoid or postpone more invasive corneal transplants, such as penetrating keratoplasty or deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty. This review aims to summarize the currently available literature on Bowman layer transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: Bowman layer transplantation seems to be a promising, minimally invasive procedure for managing advanced keratoconus with a reported 5-year success rate of 84%. The procedure allows patients to maintain acceptable visual acuity with glasses or contact lens correction. Although graft preparation and surgical technique can be challenging, adaptation of technologies, such as femtosecond laser and intraoperative anterior segment optical coherence tomography, may help overcome these barriers to enable Bowman layer transplantation to become a more widely adopted procedure. SUMMARY: Bowman layer transplantation may offer an alternative, less invasive treatment option for eyes with advanced, progressive keratoconus.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OphthalmologySame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207