Penetrating Keratoplasty with a Preserved Donor Cornea in Veterinary Ophthalmology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article describes the penetrating keratoplasty using the technique of rehydration of donor cornea dehydrated over silica gel, as well as complications that can arise. The indications included corneal ulcers, descemetocoele, corneal sequestrum and corneal perforation. 37 (88.37%) out of 43 corneal transplants had a favorable outcome in surgeries with complete excision of abnormal tissues. In 5 cases (11.63%), the authors faced such complications as suture failure, formation of anterior synechias, incomplete epithelization after the suture removal, and transplant swelling reversed with the preservation of eye optical functions, and secondary glaucoma in the late postoperative period that ended up in eyeball endoprosthesis transplantation. Due to a high rate of efficiency of the proposed method, penetrating keratoplasty with rehydrated grafts can be recommended for the treatment in case of medical emergency experienced by cats and dogs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".