AMO array multifocal lens versus monofocal correction in cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the functional capabilities of 15 patients (30 eyes) who had implantation of the Allergan Medical Optics (AMO) Array multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) with those of 13 patients (26 eyes) with an AMO monofocal IOL. SETTING: Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Western Ontario, Canada. METHODS: The objective capabilities of both groups were analyzed through visual acuity measurements for distance, near, and depth of focus. Subjective functionality was assessed through the use of a questionnaire that included the previously validated VF-14 index of visual function, a global measure of overall satisfaction with visual acuity, and questions related to the frequency of spectacle wear. RESULTS: Both groups had excellent corrected and uncorrected distance visual acuity postoperatively. The multifocal group had better acuity than the monofocal group at near with distance correction in place (70% versus 43% achieved J3 or better). The multifocal group also had significantly better depth of focus. Subjectively, both groups indicated high levels of satisfaction with visual function. However, the multifocal group indicated higher levels of satisfaction during the day, at night, and overall without spectacles. This result translated into less spectacle wear for both near and distance in the multifocal group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate high patient satisfaction with the Array multifocal IOL and greater functional independence from spectacle wear, by objective and subjective patient measures, than with the monofocal IOL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".