Possibilities of Preservative-Free Therapy for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of preservative free travoprost generic in primary open-angle glaucoma patients. Patients and methods. 40 patients with compensated primary open-angle glaucoma (POG) and dry eye (DE) were examined: 1st group (20 patients) with the initial stage of POG (travoprost with a preservative monotherapy), 2nd group with an advanced stage of POG (travoprost with a preservative in combination therapy). In all patients, travoprost with a preservative was replaced with preservative free travoprost (Traviolan, 1 time per day, in the evening). Control: 1 — when included in the study; 2 — 4 weeks after replacing travoprost with a preservative for preservative free travoprost. Efficiency criteria: absence of negative dynamics of intraocular pressure (IOP) and MD and PSD perimetric indices (dB; Optos). Safety criteria: absence of OSDI (scores), tear film brake up time (TBUT; Norn’s test, s), lower tear meniscus height (LTMH, µm; OptoVue) and Bijsterveld’s xerosis index (XI, scores) negative dynamics. Results. At the 2nd control point, all observed did not have a statistically significant dynamics of IOP, MD, PSD. In patients of both groups, at the 2nd control point, there was the OSDI and TBUT statistically significant positive dynamics, and in patients of the 1st group — XI statistically significant positive dynamics. The trend towards to XI decreasing in 2nd group patients and the LTMH dynamics in both groups turned out to be statistically insignificant. Conclusion. Preservative free travoprost has shown efficacy comparable to that of travoprost with preservative in both monotherapy and combination therapy. Significant positive dynamics of OSDI and TBUT in patients of both groups and XI in 1st group patients after switching to preservative free travoprost indicates a good “safety profile” of therapy in terms of its effect on the ocular surface state in DE conditions, which, from our point of view, may contribute to maintaining the “quality of life” and patients compliance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".