Presbyopia Correction with ReZoom Multifocal IOLs: Canadian Multicentre Comparison of 6 week and 6 month Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the visual outcomes at 6 weeks and 6 months post-op following bilateral implantation of ReZoom Multifocal IOLs. Methods: 18 centres across Canada participated in this study. Patients presenting for bilateral cataract or refractive lensectomy surgery were enrolled. Pre-op and post-op questionnaires were used to access patient dependence on glasses for near, intermediate and distance vision, as well as the presence of dysphotopsias. Near, distance and intermediate vision, as well as refraction was measured. This report focuses on the results at 6 weeks and 6 months post-op. Results: 161 patients were enrolled in the study; 106 completed the 6 week follow-up and 98 finished the 6 month follow-up. 94% and 91%, respectively, were spectacle independent at 6 weeks and 6 months. 91% and 97% respectively, achieved 20/30 or better uncorrected distance vision at 6 weeks and 6 months; 59% and 100% saw 20/30 or better at intermediate distance, uncorrected, respectively at 6 weeks and 6 months; and 79% and 84% saw 20/30 or better, uncorrected, for near, respectively at 6 weeks and 6 months. At 6 months, there was a significant increase in the number of patients seeing 20/20 or better at all distances. Dysphotopic symptoms were less post-op compared to pre-op, and decreased significantly at 6 month post-op. Conclusions: This study found that patients continue to achieve improvement in visual function with time, following implantation of the ReZoom multifocal IOL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".