Letter to the Editor: Comment on Adamovich-Zeitlina et al’s “Clinical Outcomes of Boston Type 1 Keratoprosthesis With and Without Endophthalmitis During the Covid-19 Pandemic”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Authors reported an 18% rate of endophthalmitis in Boston type 1 keratoprosthesis (KPro) patients, higher than previously reported rates. Most cases occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely due to reduced access to care. Bandage contact lens wear was found to be protective, supporting its role as standard of care in KPro eyes. Black patients experienced higher rates of endophthalmitis, highlighting disparities in eye care. Vancomycin prophylaxis did not reduce the risk of endophthalmitis in KPro eyes and may increase the number of fungal cases, supporting the selective use of topical antibiotics. Despite the higher incidence of endophthalmitis in this study, visual outcomes remained stable, emphasizing the importance of lifelong follow-up and equitable access to care for all KPro patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".