Utility of HSV Serology for Chronic Corneal Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to determine the utility of obtaining herpes simplex virus (HSV) serology for patients presenting with chronic corneal pathology of unknown etiology for which HSV is a diagnostic consideration. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients presenting to one cornea specialist (J.M.G.) between August 2011 and April 2018 with a chronic (>6 weeks) corneal condition for which HSV was suspected and serology was performed. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, treatment, final diagnosis, and follow-up duration were recorded. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with a median age of 52 (range: 5-85) years were included in the study. Patients were classified by presenting clinical features as corneal ulcer (46.2%), stromal keratitis (24.1%), superficial keratitis (18.5%), or keratouveitis (11.1%). The seroprevalence of HSV-1 and HSV-2 antibodies were 42.6% and 18.5%, including 5 patients (9.3%) positive for both HSV-1 and HSV-2. Serology impacted management for all patients with negative titers (48.1%), defined as discontinuing antiviral medication, electing not to start antiviral medication, or continuing antiviral medication for a non-HSV etiology (e.g., varicella zoster keratitis). No patients with HSV serology were ultimately diagnosed with HSV keratitis. Median follow-up duration was 1.5 years (range 0.8-6.6 years). CONCLUSION: Although only useful when negative, our study confirms that serology may be useful for excluding HSV as a diagnostic consideration for patients presenting with chronic corneal pathology. The seroprevalence of HSV antibodies for our patient cohort was comparable with previous population-based studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".