ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
A Novel Approach to Fabricate Early Keratoconus Phantom Models.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a method to fabricate early keratoconus phantom models and evaluate the feasibility of using corneal models for studying the dynamic response of early keratoconus under an air puff. Methods: A corneal mold was designed, and the silicone material was poured into the mold to produce corneal phantoms. Two types of early keratoconus phantoms with reduced mechanical properties in a specific area were prepared using a two-step molding process: the central keratoconus phantom and the paracentral keratoconus phantom. Corneal Visualization Scheimpflug Technology tonometry was performed on the normal corneal phantoms and early keratoconus phantoms, and the corresponding dynamic corneal response (DCR) parameters were recorded. Results: A majority of DCR parameters of the normal corneal phantoms, including deflection amplitude at highest concavity (HCDA), peak distance (PD), radius of curvature (HR), first and second applanation times (A1T and A2T), first and second applanation velocities (A1V and A2V), and the stiffness parameter at the first applanation (SPA1), exhibited trends in response to changes in the simulated intraocular pressure (SIOP) that aligned with experimental results based on ex vivo animal eyes. Significant differences in HCDA, PD, HR, A1V, A2V, A1T, A2T, and integrated radius (IR) were observed between the early keratoconus phantoms and the normal corneal phantoms. Conclusions: The early keratoconus phantom models fabricated by the present novel approach are feasible for studying the dynamic response of early keratoconus under an air puff. Translational Relevance: This study demonstrated the potential of corneal phantom models for corneal biomechanical studies, which can deepen our understanding of the DCR parameters, and the results will provide valuable information for early diagnosis of keratoconus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.