MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119132180 · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000002641

Endophthalmitis in Eyes With the Boston Type I Keratoprosthesis: Incidence, Recurrence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes

2020· article· en· W3119132180 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndophthalmitisMedicineEvisceration (ophthalmology)KeratoprosthesisOphthalmologyVisual acuitySurgeryIncidence (geometry)Hazard ratioRetrospective cohort studyKeratitisConfidence intervalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and recurrence of Boston type I keratoprosthesis (KPro)-associated endophthalmitis, and its microbiological profile, risk factors, and outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 158 consecutive KPro procedures with a median follow-up of 78.4 months. Medical charts were reviewed for ocular history, contact lens and topical antibiotic use, visual acuity, and complications. For eyes with endophthalmitis, time to infection, culture results, and recurrences were collected. Cox regression analyses identified risk factors for endophthalmitis and compared the risk for visual failure, KPro retention, and globe loss between eyes with and without endophthalmitis. RESULTS: The incidence and recurrence rates of endophthalmitis were of 1.7% and 6.0% per procedure-year, respectively. First episodes occurred at a median of 18.6 months. Eight of 18 episodes (44%) were culture positive, isolating mainly Gram-positive bacteria (7 [88%]). Previous ocular burn (hazard ratio: 7.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.91-28.15), infectious keratitis (5.09, 1.70-15.22), corneal melt (4.55, 1.50-13.83), and postoperative contact lens wear (4.19, 1.17-15.04) were risk factors. Eyes with endophthalmitis did not have a higher risk for visual failure (1.74, 0.78-3.91) but were more likely to not retain the KPro (2.81, 1.15-6.88) and undergo evisceration (2.81, 1.15-6.88). All eyes lost ≥ 2 lines of vision during the endophthalmitis episode. CONCLUSIONS: Endophthalmitis is rare but vision and globe threatening in eyes with KPro. Given the increased associated risk, corneal melts and infectious keratitis must be promptly treated, postoperative contact lenses should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and patients with ocular burns might require more aggressive antimicrobial prophylaxis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it