Comparison of long-term outcomes of simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking combined with intracorneal ring segment or topography-guided PRK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare long-term outcomes of simultaneous accelerated corneal crosslinking (CXL) with intrastromal corneal ring segments (CXL-ICRS) with simultaneous accelerated CXL with topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (CXL-TG-PRK) in progressive keratoconus (KC). SETTING: Kensington Eye Institute and Bochner Eye Institute, Toronto, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized interventional study. METHODS: The change in visual and topographical outcomes of CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK 4 to 5 years postoperatively were compared using linear regression models adjusted for preoperative corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) and maximum keratometry (Kmax). RESULTS: 57 eyes of 43 patients with progressive KC who underwent simultaneous accelerated (9 mW/cm 2 , 10 minutes) CXL-ICRS (n = 32) and CXL-TG-PRK (n = 25) were included. Mean follow-up duration was 51.28 (9.58) and 54.57 (5.81) months for the CXL-ICRS and CXL-TG-PRK groups, respectively. Initial mean Kmax was higher in the CXL-ICRS group compared with the CXL-TG-PRK group (60.68 ± 6.81 diopters [D] vs 57.15 ± 4.19 D, P = .02). At the last follow-up, change (improvement) in logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) compared with that preoperatively was significant with CXL-ICRS (-0.31 ± 0.27, P < .001, which is equivalent to approximately 3 lines) and not significant with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.06 ± 0.42, P = .43). The logMAR CDVA improved significantly with CXL-ICRS (-0.22 ± 0.20, P < .001), but not with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.05 ± 0.22, P = .25). Adjusting for baseline Kmax and CDVA, the improvement in UDVA was significantly greater with CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK (-0.27, 95% CI, 0.06-0.47, P = .01). Improvement in CDVA was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of progressive KC with long-term follow-up, UDVA showed more improvement with accelerated CXL-ICRS than with CXL-TG-PRK.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".