Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Simultaneous bilateral cataract surgery (SBCS) is gaining in popularity worldwide. Whereas 5 or 10 years ago, it was only performed by scattered individual surgeons, it is now rapidly becoming accepted and mainstream. RECENT FINDINGS: Cataract surgery is generally performed on older patients. The reduction in medical visits, avoidance of interprocedural anisometropia and decreased stereopsis, and very rapid rehabilitation made possible by SBCS make the surgery much easier on the patients and their families. The fears of SBCS, most notably bilateral postoperative endophthalmitis, seem unfounded, as long as established precautions are followed. Some jurisdictions continue to penalize surgeons financially for performing SBCS, thus discouraging its spread. Unlike the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK, Surgery Guidelines, the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2006 Preferred Practice Patterns do not include relative indications for SBCS. SUMMARY: SBCS will likely become rapidly more common around the world during the coming decade, to the great benefit of patients, institutions, and funding agencies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".