Fellow-eye comparison of posterior capsule opacification with AcrySof SN60AT and AF-1 YA-60BB blue-blocking intraocular lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate intraindividual differences in posterior capsule opacification (PCO) and visual performance of AcrySof SN60AT (Alcon Laboratories) and AF-1 YA-60BB (Hoya Corp.) intraocular lenses (IOLs). SETTING: Ophthalmology Department, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: In this prospective single-surgeon standardized-surgical-procedure fellow-eye comparison, an AcrySof SN60AT or an AF-1 YA-60BB IOL was randomized to the first eye of 36 patients and fellow-eye surgery was performed within 4 to 6 weeks. Follow-up was at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Best distance- corrected logMAR visual acuity was measured at 100% and 9% contrast. Contrast sensitivity was measured using the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT) on the Optec 3500 instrument (Stereo Optical Company, Inc.). Color vision was assessed with the Farnsworth Munsell 100-hue test. After pupil dilation, digital retroillumination photographs were taken and the percentage area of PCO was calculated using POCO software. RESULTS: Posterior capsule opacification was significantly greater in the AF-1 YA-60BB group than in the AcrySof SN60AT group at all time points (P<.0001), with the difference greatest at 24 months. At 24 months, 100% contrast visual acuity was significantly better in the AcrySof SN60AT group than in the AF-1 YA-60BB group (P = .0313); 9% contrast visual acuity was significantly better in the AcrySof SN60AT group from 6 months onward. There was no significant difference between groups in color vision or contrast sensitivity. Electron microscopy showed the AcrySof SN60AT IOL has a much sharper posterior edge profile. CONCLUSIONS: The AcrySof SN60AT IOL had better PCO performance and thus visual performance than the AF-1 YA-60BB IOL. This is attributable to the differences in optic edge design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".