MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975088607 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2014.05.043

Safety and effectiveness of a new toric presbyopia-correcting posterior chamber silicone intraocular lens

2015· article· en· W1975088607 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jay S. Pepose, Jon Hayashida, John Hovanesian, James Davies, Phillips Kirk Labor, Jeffrey Whitman, Harvey Carter, Michael Colvard, Phillip J. Buckhurst, Omid Khodai, David Mittleman, Gregg Feinerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDioptreAstigmatismOphthalmologyIntraocular lensVisual acuityPhacoemulsificationOptometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Trulign toric intraocular lens (IOL) in adults with cataract. SETTING: Eight private practices in the United States and 1 in Canada. DESIGN: Prospective randomized single-masked multicenter study. METHODS: A toric IOL (1.25 D, 2.00 D, or 2.75 D, determined by a toric calculator) was implanted in eligible patients with age-related cataract requiring a 16.00 to 27.00 diopter (D) spherical IOL power and with a predicted postoperative astigmatism of 0.83 to 2.50 D. Eyes within the lowest cylinder range (predicted postoperative astigmatism 0.83 to 1.32 D) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio between the 1.25 D toric IOL group and the nontoric accommodating IOL (Crystalens) control group. RESULTS: The toric 1.25 D group had a statistically significantly greater percentage reduction in absolute cylinder (P < .001) and uncorrected distance visual acuity (P = .002) than the control group at the 120- to 180-day visit. The mean monocular uncorrected vision at distance, intermediate, and near was 20/25, 20/22, and 20/39, respectively, with the 1.25 D, 2.00 D, and 2.75 D toric IOLs in aggregate (toric group). In addition, 96.1% of patients (123/128) had 5.0 degrees or less absolute IOL rotation postoperatively. Regarding safety, the endpoints for preservation of corrected visual acuity and the incidence of complications and adverse events were met. CONCLUSION: The toric IOL was safe and effective in reducing the effects of preoperative corneal astigmatism and provided excellent uncorrected distance and intermediate vision and functional near vision. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Dr. Pepose is a consultant to Bausch & Lomb and was medical monitor of this study. Drs. Buckhurst, Whitman, Feinerman, Hovanesian, Davies, Labor, and Carter are consultants to Bausch & Lomb. At the time of the study, Drs. Hayashida, and Khodai were employees of Bausch & Lomb. Drs. Colvard and Mittleman have 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207