P-13 Trans-epithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) for recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
*Correspondence - Mukhtar Bizrah: m.bizrah@nhs.net Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of trans-epithelial phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) as a treatment for recurrent cornea erosion syndrome (RCES) in patients with symptoms refractory to conventional treatments. Methods and Analysis All patients who received PTK treatment for RCES had failed more than one conventional treatment, and were first vetted and approved by the British Columbia public health authority. A retrospective chart review and telephone survey were conducted at the Pacific Laser Eye Centre. Exclusion criteria were ocular co-morbidities potentially affecting treatment efficacy. Results This study included 593 eyes of 555 patients (46.2% male; 50.9±14.2 years old) who underwent PTK. The leading identified causes of RCES were trauma (45.7%) and anterior basement membrane dystrophy (44.2%). The most common pre-PTK interventions were ocular lubricants (90.9%), hypertonic solutions (77.9%), and bandage contact lenses (50.9%). 36 eyes had undergone surgical interventions such as stromal puncture, epithelial debridement, or diamond burr polishing. Post-PTK, 78% of patients did not require any subsequent therapies, 20% required ongoing drops and 6 patients (1.1%) reported no symptom improvement. All 6 eyes were successfully retreated with PTK between 11.3±14.9 months from initial PTK. All study patients showed no significant differences in best corrected visual acuity pre vs. postoperatively. Conclusion When compared to other surgical options, PTK is potentially more costly but frequently more effective and has a high safety profile. The third-party public health vetted nature of this study, the high patient satisfaction, and the low recurrence rate of RCES suggest that PTK should be considered at an earlier stage in the management of RCES.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".