MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318930497 · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000003171

Monkeypox-Associated Disciform Keratitis

2022· article· en· W4318930497 on OpenAlexaff
Waleed K. Alsarhani, Clara C. Chan, Shelley Boyd, Maan Hasso, Ahmed Almeer, Darrell H. S. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPoxvirus research and outbreaks
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKeratitisDermatologyPrednisoloneSurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe a case of monkeypox (MPX)-associated disciform keratitis. METHODS: This is a case report. RESULTS: A 36-year-old male patient presented to the infectious diseases clinic with a 1-week history of disseminated pustular skin lesions, a 4-day history of constitutional symptoms, and redness in the left eye. Testing of blood, 2 skin lesions, and a conjunctival swab confirmed the presence of MPX virus by polymerase chain reaction. On ophthalmologic examination on the 17th day of illness, there was a corneal epithelial ridge that stained with fluorescein with disciform corneal edema and underlying keratic precipitates. The patient was treated with oral tecovirimat 600 mg twice a day for 14 days and topical prednisolone acetate 1% 4 times daily, starting 2 days later. On completion of oral treatment, his corneal findings had resolved except for a small subepithelial scar at which time topical steroids were tapered. CONCLUSIONS: MPX may cause disciform keratitis and scarring that closely resembles other ocular viral infections. Clinical trials are urgently needed to define the optimal management of human MPX infections and reduce vision loss.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicPoxvirus research and outbreaksFrench-language works237,207