MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134457799 · doi:10.3390/jcm10061178

Topical Corticosteroids and Fungal Keratitis: A Review of the Literature and Case Series

2021· review· en· W3134457799 on OpenAlex
Karl Anders Knutsson, Alfonso Iovieno, Stanislav Matuška, Luigi Fontana, Paolo Rama

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

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFungal keratitisKeratitisDermatologyAntifungalTopical steroidSigns and symptomsIntensive care medicineInflammationSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of fungal keratitis is complex since signs and symptoms are subtle and ocular inflammation is minimal in the preliminary stages of infection. Initial misdiagnosis of the condition and consequent management of inflammation with corticosteroids is a frequent occurrence. Topical steroid use is considered to be a principal factor for development of fungal keratitis. In this review, we assess the studies that have reported outcomes of fungal keratitis in patients receiving steroids prior to diagnosis. We also assess the possible rebound effect present when steroids are abruptly discontinued and the clinical characteristics of three patients in this particular clinical scenario. Previous reports and the three clinical descriptions presented suggest that in fungal keratitis, discontinuing topical steroids can induce worsening of clinical signs. In these cases, we recommend to slowly taper steroids and continue or commence appropriate antifungal therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.387 · 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