Corneal laser procedure for vision improvement in patients with late stage dry age-related macular degeneration - a retrospective observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : To determine the safety and efficacy of corneal photovitrification (CPV), a new corneal laser procedure, for vision improvement in patients with late stage dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Design : Retrospective observational cohort study Participants : 32 eyes of 17 patients with late stage dry AMD; each eye received a single CPV corneal laser procedure and had 12 months (12m) post-treatment (Tx) follow-up. Methods : Pre- and post-Tx examinations included slit-lamp biomicroscopy, subjective manifest refraction, best corrected distance and near visual acuity (BCDVA and BCNVA), and potential visual acuity (PVA). Additional examinations including contrast sensitivity (CS), corneal topography (CT), ray tracing aberrometry (RTA) and microperimetry (MP) were obtained for a subgroup (n=12) of eyes. Main Outcome Measures : BCDVA, BCNVA, PVA, CS, CT, RTA and MP measurements Results : Safety – There were no complications or adverse events. Efficacy – Mean (± SD) BCDVA improved significantly (p < 0.004) from 20/238 (1.08 logMAR) at baseline to 20/144 (0.86 logMAR) at 12m post-Tx corresponding to 11.0 (± 13.1) letters gained. Mean contrast sensitivity improved significantly (p < 0.05) by a factor of 1.86 from baseline at 12m post-Tx. Conclusions : Subject to the limitation of a small sample size, this pilot study indicates that the CPV corneal laser procedure is safe and efficacious for vision improvement in patients with late stage dry AMD. The CPV Tx mechanism of action involves retinal irradiance distribution modifications that may stimulate patient use of functional, rather than atrophied, retinal regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".