<scp>DMEK</scp> graft: One size does not fit all
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is a popular procedure for the treatment of corneal endothelial diseases mainly targeting Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) and pseudophakic bullous keratopathy (PBK). Although DMEK has multiple advantages, it is challenging in terms of graft preparation and delivery. One of the crucial factors of DMEK graft preparation is determining the size of the graft. Evaluating risks and benefits of transplanting larger or smaller grafts compared with the descemetorhexis performed following a standard DMEK procedure thus becomes important. Advanced techniques like pre-loaded DMEK requires pre-selection of graft diameter without physical examination of the eye making it more challenging. Therefore, recognizing the benefits of graft size and the number of transplanted endothelial cells becomes essential. Smaller DMEK grafts have been preferred and accepted for grafting. Larger diameter grafts have advantages but can be challenging due to higher detachment rates. We thus aim to review the challenges of preparing and delivering DMEK tissues with small or large diameter based on selected descemetorhexis area, discuss the outcomes based on different graft sizes, highlight related complications and suggest which cases may benefit from adopting smaller or larger graft size.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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 teacher head, 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".