Comparison of the Infiniti Vision and the Series 20,000 Legacy Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficiency of the Infiniti vision system and the Series 20,000 Legacy system phacoemulsification units during routine cataract extraction. METHODS: Thirty-nine eyes of 39 patients were randomized to have their cataract removed using either the Infiniti or the Legacy system, both using the Neosonix handpiece. System settings were standardized. Ultrasound time, amount of balanced salt solution (BSS) used intraoperatively, and postoperative visual acuity at postoperative days 1, 7 and 30 were evaluated. RESULTS: Preoperatively, best corrected visual acuity was significantly worse in the Infiniti group compared to the Legacy group (0.38 +/- 0.23 and 0.21 +/- 0.16, respectively; p = 0.012). The mean phacoemulsification time was 39.6 +/- 22.9 s (range 6.0-102.0) for the Legacy group and 18.3 +/-19.1 s (range 1.0-80.0) for the Infiniti group (p = 0.001). The mean amounts of intraoperative BSS used were 117 +/- 37.7 ml (range 70-195) in the Legacy group and 85.3 +/- 38.9 ml (range 40-200) in the Infiniti group (p = 0.005). No differences in postoperative visual acuity were found. CONCLUSION: The ability to use higher flow rates and vacuum settings with the Infiniti vision system allowed for cataract removal with less phacoemulsification time than when using the Legacy system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".