Comparison of the Clinical Efficacy of Boston Keratoprosthesis Type I and Repetitive Penetrating Keratoplasty for Refractory Keratopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of Boston Keratoprosthesis type I (B-KProI) and penetrating keratoplasty (PKP) for patients with refractory keratopathy after 1failed PKP in China. METHOD: The 42 consecutive cases with refractory keratopathy after 1 failed PKP, from July 2010 to December 2014, were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical method: KPro group (n = 21) and PKP group (n = 21). Visual acuity (LogMAR), corneal graft transparency, postoperative complications and corneal graft survival rate were observed. The follow-up time was 2 years. The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to analyze the survival rate of the two groups of corneal grafts. RESULTS: The average best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months in KPro group were significantly lower than PKP group (P < 0.01). The best postoperative visual acuity and BCVA at postoperative 2 years in KPro group were lower than PKP group. The success rate of KPro group (86%) were significantly higher than PKP group (43%) (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in indicate of complications in 2 groups including secondary glaucoma, secondary infectious corneal ulcer, corneal graft melting and endophthalmitis (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with repetitive PKP, B-KProI had a higher success rate, improved postoperative visual acuity, reduced postoperative corneal transplant rejection rates and improved corneal graft survival rate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".