MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210545324 · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000002978

“Smoldering” Rejection of Keratolimbal Allograft

2022· article· en· W4210545324 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal Surgery and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Respiratory systemImmunizationGraft rejection2019-20 coronavirus outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report a case of "smoldering" keratolimbal allograft (KLAL) rejection in a patient with subtherapeutic levels of systemic immunosuppression in temporal association with BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccination for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: This was a case report. OBSERVATIONS: A 72-year-old man presented with circumferential perilimbal engorgement, stagnation, and tortuosity of vessels with mild chemosis in his right eye KLAL segments 1 month after receiving the BNT162b2 messenger RNA vaccine while his tacrolimus trough blood levels were subtherapeutic measuring <2 ng/mL. He had undergone KLAL 6.5 years before for total limbal stem cell deficiency from a chemical injury and had been stable without any history of rejection. The donor was blood type O, and the patient had no systemic comorbidities. The patient was treated with hourly difluprednate 0.05% and increasing of his oral tacrolimus dose to 2 mg twice a day with improvement of rejection signs. CONCLUSIONS: There may be a temporal association between KLAL rejection after immunization against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in patients with subtherapeutic levels of systemic immunosuppression. Patients should be on alert for any ocular signs or symptoms postimmunization and present for treatment immediately.

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)0.000
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

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

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal Surgery and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207