Inferior Spear-like Lens Opacity as a Sign of Keratoconus
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report 21 cases of typical inferior feather-shape lens opacity associated with keratoconus. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the association of keratoconus with inferior feather-shape lens opacity in refractive surgery candidates. Visual acuity, demographic, refractive, and topographic characteristics of 26 eyes of 21 patients with inferior feather-shape lens opacity were evaluated in detail. Pedigree analysis was also performed to assess possible inheritance. RESULTS: 0.001). Lens opacity was bilateral in 5 cases (24%), and keratoconus was bilateral in all 20 patients with lens opacity. Nine eyes out of thirty-six with a complete data record (25%) had a severe keratoconus and underwent deep lamellar keratoplasty, while 11 (31%) had forme fruste keratoconus. Pedigrees were drawn for eight patients, most families of whom suggested an X-linked recessive inheritance. CONCLUSION: The present study was the first to investigate patients with a peculiar inferior feather-shape lens opacity accompanied by bilateral keratoconus, which was observed in 95% of the patients. This finding should raise awareness as to the possibility of diagnosing keratoconus in the eyes of the patients with these characteristics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it