Optical quality comparison between 2 collagen copolymer posterior chamber phakic intraocular lens designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the optical quality in vitro of 2 designs of the Visian Implantable Collamer Lens phakic intraocular lens (pIOL) for different powers and optical apertures. SETTING: University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. DESIGN: Experimental study. METHODS: The Nimo TR1504 deflectometry device was used to measure the V4c pIOL, which has a smaller optic diameter, and the V5 pIOL, which has a larger optic diameter. The pIOLs were measured for -3.00 diopters (D), -6.00 D, -9.50 D, and -10.50 D at different optical apertures from 3.00 to 6.00 mm depending on the IOL power and model. The root mean square of higher-order aberrations (RMS HOAs) was analyzed. The Strehl ratio, point-spread functions (PSFs), and simulated images were calculated from wavefront aberrations. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in any Zernike RMS or RMS HOAs between the 2 pIOL models with the same power and optical aperture (P > .05). Both pIOLs had negative spherical aberration that increased with the pIOL power. Strehl ratio values showed no statistically significant differences between the pIOLs with the same power and pupil aperture. Minimal differences were seen in the PSFs and simulated images between the pIOLs. CONCLUSIONS: Both pIOLs showed good and comparable in vitro optical quality similar that of a perfect lens in that they should not affect visual performance after implantation. Patients with larger pupil diameters could benefit from the pIOL with the larger optic diameter because it showed better in vitro optical quality than the previous design with a smaller optic diameter. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".