Photorefractive keratectomy to correct hyperopic shift after radial keratotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and predictability of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) to correct post-radial-keratotomy (RK) hyperopic shift. University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.This retrospective nonconsecutive case series comprised 53 eyes of 53 patients who had PRK to correct hyperopic shift after RK. Both RK and PRK were performed by the same surgeon at the same clinic from 1993 to 2001.The mean time after RK was 57 months (range 24 to 84 months). The mean follow-up after hyperopic PRK (HPRK) was 10 months (range 3 to 33 months). The mean hyperopic shift 1 month post-RK to HPRK was +1.6 diopters (D) +/- 1.0 (SD) (range +0.25 to +4.125 D). The mean pre-HPRK spherical equivalent (SE) was +2.15 +/- 0.80 D (range +1.00 to +4.125 D) and the mean post-HPRK SE, -0.10 +/- 0.80 D (range -2.00 to +2.125 D). At the last examination, 47 eyes (88.7%) had a refractive error within +/-1.0 D of emmetropia and 38 eyes (71.7%) had an uncorrected visual acuity of 20/25 or better. Two eyes lost 1 Snellen line of best corrected visual acuity. No significant haze or complications developed in any eye. Hyperopic PRK with a conservative technique (large optical zone and small ablation thickness) can be used successfully to correct RK-induced hyperopia in patients with small to moderate refractive errors. It appeared to be effective, predictable, and safe.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".