Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem for Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency: A Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) in patients treated with Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem (PROSE). METHODS: Retrospective case series. Patients with LSCD who received PROSE treatment were included. Data including best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and LSCD staging before and after PROSE dispensing were collected to characterize each case. RESULTS: Five eyes of four patients were included. All patients were female, with an age range of 21 to 80 years. Each patient received a PROSE device with diameters ranging from 16 to 18.5 mm. Follow-up ranged from 11 to 29 months. Tolerated wear times ranged from 3.5 to 10 hr daily. Four eyes showed improved BCVA and unchanged LSCD staging as per the global consensus after PROSE treatment. Three of these eyes had stage 3 and one had stage 1C LSCD at diagnosis. The fifth eye had worse BCVA and recurrence of stage 3 LSCD post-living-related conjunctival limbal allograft transplant despite PROSE treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic Replacement of the Ocular Surface Ecosystem may be a viable treatment for LSCD, including severe cases, because it can provide symptom relief and improve vision. Its customizability, as demonstrated in this study, is beneficial for troubleshooting issues with fitting. Future studies are needed to further assess PROSE as treatment for LSCD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".