MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Time to achieve best postoperative visual acuity following Boston keratoprosthesis surgery

2021· article· en· W3134104033 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan El‐Khoury, Majd Mustafa, Roy Daoud, Mona Harissi‐Dagher

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKeratoprosthesisVisual acuityOphthalmologySurgeryOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the time needed for patients with Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) to reach their best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and all contributing factors. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 137 consecutive eyes from 118 patients, measured how long they needed to reach their BCVA and looked at factors that might affect this time duration including patient demographics, ocular comorbidities and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 5.49 years. The median time to BCVA postoperatively was 6 months, with 47% of patients achieving their BCVA by 3 months. The mean best achieved logMAR visual acuity was 0.71, representing a gain of 6 lines on the Snellen visual acuity chart. Postoperative glaucoma, retroprosthetic membrane (RPM) and endophthalmitis prolonged this duration. We found no correlation between the following factors and time to BCVA: gender, age, indication for KPro surgery, primary versus secondary KPro, number of previous penetrating keratoplasties, previous retinal surgery, intraoperative anterior vitrectomy and preoperative glaucoma. CONCLUSION: In our retrospective cohort, the majority of subjects reached their BCVA between 3 and 6 months after KPro implantation. This duration was significantly prolonged by the development of postoperative glaucoma, RPM and endophthalmitis.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207