Novel Technique to Improve the Efficacy of Corneal Cross Linking in Cases of Post LASIK Ectasia [Letter]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read "Novel Technique to Improve the Efficacy of Corneal Cross Linking in Cases of Post LASIK Ectasia" by Yousif et al. 1 This paper describes a topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (TG-PRK), followed by phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) and corneal cross-linking (CXL) for post-LASIK ectasia (PLE).The authors discuss our novel under-flap CXL (ufCXL) technique for treatment of PLE. 2 In ufCXL, the LASIK flap is opened, retracted, protected, and the exposed corneal stromal bed is soaked with riboflavin.Excess riboflavin is irrigated away, the flap is repositioned, and ultraviolet light is administered to the surface. 2 They state Along a relatively short follow-up period of 6 months, and including a small cohort of eight eyes, the study results showed stability (with no improvement) of each of CDVA, efficacy index, safety index, K max, and corneal irregularity index
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".