MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995122502 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2007.05.031

Accuracy of intraocular lens power estimation in eyes having phacovitrectomy for macular holes

2007· article· en· W1995122502 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal and Macular Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefractionOphthalmologyMedicineDioptreTamponadePhacoemulsificationRefractive errorIntraocular lensVitrectomyMean differenceOptometryOpticsVisual acuityPhysicsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.307 · 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