MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044561551 · doi:10.2147/opth.s52489

Glistenings in hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses do affect visual function

2013· article· en· W2044561551 on OpenAlexaff
George Beiko, Andrzej Grzybowski

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraocular lensesMedicineIntraocular lensOphthalmologyOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently read the paper "Evaluation of in vitro glistening formation in hydrophobic acrylic intraocular lenses" by Thomes and Callaghan. 1 The paper is extremely interesting in that the authors, employees of Alcon Research Ltd (Forth Worth, TX, USA), report not only that Alcon lenses have glistenings, but also that "continuous improvements on glistening formation" 1 have been made by Alcon over the years from 2003 to 2012.We congratulate the authors and Alcon on their efforts, and on making this admission.The paper raises a number of concerns and questions.Firstly, the statement in the introduction, "Glistenings are typically observed within a few months of surgery and plateau approximately 1 year after surgical implantation of the [intraocular lens] IOL" 1 is not referenced.The reported literature is in contradiction to this statement, in that the glistenings formation, as well as the severity of glistenings, has been reported to increase with longer follow-up times.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Very few studies that evaluate the progression beyond one year find glistening formation to be stable.[9][10] In addition, this statement is contradicted by the authors themselves in the introduction section of this paper where they state that a study by Colin et al 4 found that 73.8% of the IOLs had glistenings when follow-up was less than 2 years, and 94.2% of the IOLs had glistenings when the follow-up was longer than 2 years.Even after10 years of follow-up, no plateau was seen. 2 In the Introduction, the authors state that "These results are consistent with most studies regarding glistening formation in AcrySof ® IOLs that found no impact on visual function." 1 This statement is incorrect.Although Snellen visual acuity is only affected by severe grades of glistenings, visual function is affected earlier.Six published papers examined the effect of glistenings on contrast sensitivity (CS).Four of these studies reported that glistenings had a significant negative effect on the high spatial frequency of CS, 3,[11][12][13] and two studies were inconclusive.9,10 While some studies do show a decrease in visual acuity with increased severity of glistenings, 4,13 the general consensus in the literature tends to be that visual acuity is unaffected by glistening.In vitro studies report a positively correlated relationship between the total integrated light scatter and the severity of glistenings.14,15 Also, several in vivo studies found increased levels of intraocular stray light.[16][17][18] This analysis is published in van der Mooren et al. 19 The authors state that continuous improvements "... include the implementation of advanced manufacturing equipment, improved environmental controls, and tightened process controls/specifications. Specific details of these improvements cannot be fully disclosed due to the proprietary nature of the IOL manufacturing process." 1 This is Clinical Ophthalmology downloaded from https://www.dovepress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207