Accuracy of intraocular lens power estimation in eyes having phacovitrectomy for macular holes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the accuracy of intraocular lens (IOL) power estimation in eyes having combined phacoemulsification and vitrectomy for macular holes and to compare the axial length (AL) in those eyes with that in the fellow eyes. SETTING: Calderdale Royal Hospital, Halifax, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom. METHOD: The mean and standard deviation of the refractive aim, achieved refraction, and postoperative prediction error (calculated as difference between achieved refraction and refractive aim) were determined in 40 patients who had phacovitrectomy with gas tamponade for the treatment of idiopathic macular holes. The percentage of patients with an achieved refraction within +/-0.50 diopter (D), +/-1.00 D, and more than 2.00 D of the refractive aim was recorded. The mean absolute error (MAE) of the postoperative prediction error was calculated. In addition, the AL in eyes with macular holes was compared with that in fellow eyes. Axial lengths were measured using applanation A-scan ultrasound. RESULTS: Of eyes having phacovitrectomy, 45.0%, 67.5%, and 90.0% achieved a postoperative refraction within +/-0.50 D, +/-1.00 D, and +/-2.00 D, respectively, of the refractive aim; 10.0% of eyes were more than -2.00 D from the refractive aim. The overall postoperative prediction error ranged from +1.64 D to -2.51 D. The mean refractive aim was +0.30 +/- 0.72 D and the mean achieved refraction, -0.09 +/-1.25 D. There was no clinically significant difference between the means. The mean postoperative prediction error was -0.39 +/- 1.01 D, suggesting a myopic overcorrection occurred postoperatively. The MAE of the postoperative prediction error was 0.83 D. The mean AL was 23.40 mm in operated eyes and 23.46 mm in fellow eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The achieved refraction after phacovitrectomy for macular holes was comparable to results after phacoemulsification alone. The myopic overcorrection after phacovitrectomy might be a result of the gas bubble causing forward displacement of the capsular bag and IOL or inaccuracies in AL and keratometry measurements. Aiming for residual hyperopia may counteract the overcorrection. There was no difference in AL between eyes with macular holes and fellow eyes.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".