Prospective 3-arm study on pain and epithelial healing after corneal crosslinking
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:To investigate the effect of 3 regimes on pain and wound healing after corneal crosslinking (CXL).Setting:Tertiary academic referral center, Utrecht, the Netherlands.Design:Prospective cohort study.Methods:Consecutive progressive keratoconus patients who underwent 9 mW/cm 2epithelium-off CXL were included. Patients received a bandage contact lens (n = 20), occlusive patch (n = 20), or antibiotic ointment (n = 20) after treatment. Pain scores and quality of life, measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), were analyzed. Epithelial healing after 2 days, correlations between pain and psychological factors that influence pain perception (depression anxiety stress score and pain catastrophizing score), and oral pain medication were evaluated.Results:Sixty eyes of 52 patients were analyzed. On average, patients experienced considerable pain after CXL (median VAS score 6.2, range 0 to 10). The postoperative regimen did not significantly affect pain scores, although the antibiotic ointment group reported a higher VAS score (median VAS score 7.2 vs 6.7 and 6.0; P =.57). Occlusive patching showed a trend to quicker resolution of epithelial defects (85% completely healed vs 65% with lenses and 70% with antibiotic ointment; P =.43). Correlations with pain-modulating psychological factors were weak (R 2< 0.3) and not significant. The use of pain medication corresponded poorly to the prescribed use.Conclusion:This study demonstrated clinical equivalence of 3 regimes in combating postoperative pain after routine CXL. Wound healing appeared quicker in the occlusive patch group and therefore might be the best standard of care after CXL. The clinical tradition of using bandage contact lenses should be reevaluated.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it