Histological Patterns of Epithelial Alterations in Keratoconus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to confirm the presence of specific patterns of epithelial response in corneal buttons from keratoconus patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective and descriptive study. 90 penetrating keratoplasty specimens obtained from patients diagnosed with keratoconus were evaluated using bright-field microscopy. Morphologically identifiable characteristics including epithelial cell density and epithelial thickness were analyzed on hematoxylin and eosin- (H&E-) and periodic acid of Schiff- (PAS-) stained slides. RESULTS: Three distinctive patterns of epithelial alteration of the central cornea were established. Pattern 3, in which the central epithelium was as thick as peripheral epithelium, was the commonest (44.4%), followed by the pattern 2, defined as central epithelium thinner than periphery epithelium (38.9%), and the uncommonest pattern was number 1, with central epithelium thicker than the periphery (16.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Three distinctive histologic patterns that could potentially have a diagnostic and prognostic value in keratoconus patients were found.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".