MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389129868 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000002085

Case Report: Remote Scleral Lens Fitting for High Toric Scleras in a Keratoconus Patient

2023· article· en· W4389129868 on OpenAlexaff
Daddi Fadel, Cian Gildea

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeratoconusScleral lensOphthalmologyLens (geology)OptometryMedicineComputer scienceOpticsCorneaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: Technology plays a crucial role in customizing scleral lenses and improving lens alignment, especially in challenging scleral shapes. In addition, remote fitting technology allows optometrists to extend their expertise globally, empowering patients to access to customized lenses without travel expenses. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to document the difficulties encountered in fitting a scleral lens in a patient with keratoconus and pronounced scleral toricity. In addition, the study aimed to present the successful remote fitting achieved by using advanced technology. CASE REPORT: An Irish male patient diagnosed with keratoconus exhibited high scleral toricity. Generally, keratoconus eyes often exhibit significant scleral asymmetry associated with cone decentration and disease severity. Improperly aligned scleral lenses can lead to regional changes in scleral shape, lens decentration, discomfort, and visual disturbances. Indeed, previous scleral lens fits were unsuccessful because of these issues. Corneoscleral profilometry was acquired in Ireland and then used in Italy to design customized lenses, which were then delivered to the patient's optometrist in Ireland. The first lenses designed and delivered demonstrated excellent overall performance without requiring adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights the importance of corneoscleral profilometry to increase efficiency and reduce lens reorders and chair time, and the remote fitting in overcoming barriers to accessing specialized lens fitting.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.414 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207