ArticleJournal of optometry
Opto-biomechanical simulation of keratoconus development in emmetropic eyes.
Article in Journal of optometry. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess how different corneas respond to a standardized structural weak spot in different sizes and locations using the finite element method depending on their initial geometry.
methodThe corneal meshes of 5 randomly selected emmetropic SyntEyes with different biometry and optical properties were generated using MATLAB and ANSYS. To simulate keratoconus development, a local stiffness reduction of up to 60 % of the original value was implemented in three locations (central, 1mm, and 2mm inferior) with a diameter of 2mm for each cornea. From this, tangential corneal power maps were calculated.
resultsLocal weakening causes the formation of a conical deformation at the site of the weak spot and, for an inferior weak spot, a superior flattening. At the center of the weak spot, the cornea becomes thinner by 50μm, while the maximum anterior curvature increased by an average of 51.76±1.38D and the posterior curvature by an average of -7.45±0.15D for the central keratoconus. The anterior surface area increases by 0.88±0.29 mm² and 0.85±0.03 mm² for a central and inferior keratoconus, respectively. The corresponding values for the posterior surface were 1.10±0.03 mm² and 1.06±0.03 mm².
conclusionThe shape of a keratoconic cornea is not only determined by the response to a local structural weakening, but also by its original corneal shape. This understanding may help enhance early detection and monitoring techniques for keratoconus progression.
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.