Treatment of corneal ulceration and bullous keratopathy using a nictitating membrane flap in two horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe placement of a nictitating membrane flap as a treatment for corneal ulceration and bullous keratopathy in two horses. ANIMALS STUDIED: A 13-year-old American Saddlebred mare presented for severe corneal edema, superficial stromal ulceration, and a central bulla of the left eye. A 4-year-old Trakhener stallion also presented with a large axial bulla of the left eye with concurrent severe corneal edema and a deep stromal ulcer. PROCEDURE: A complete ophthalmic examination was performed. Samples were obtained for corneal cytology, and both horses were started on aggressive medical therapy. Both underwent general anesthesia for placement of a nictitating membrane flap and a subpalpebral lavage system (SPLS). RESULTS: Corneal cytology for each horse revealed a mixed bacterial population. Moderate Pseudomonas aeruginosa was cultured from the mare, while Aspergillus species and a few Enterococcus gallinarum were cultured from the stallion. The bullae in both horses resolved at 3 and 4 weeks and vision returned in the affected eye 4.5 and 3 months postoperatively at the last follow-up, respectively. CONCLUSION: Aggressive medical management with concurrent placement of a nictitating membrane flap is effective to treat bullous keratopathy in two horses. The described treatments could be used to treat horses that develop severe or progressive bullous corneal lesions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".