Intermediate optimization of vision with bilateral nonaspheric multifocal intraocular lens implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate binocular visual function, refraction, and subjective outcomes of intermediate optimization of vision after simultaneous bilateral implantation of the nonaspheric AcrySof SA60D3 ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens (IOL). SETTING: Private clinic, Abbotsford, British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: Intermediate optimization was performed by overcorrection of 1.00 diopter (D) to induce mild myopia in the nondominant eye in patients having bilateral implantation of the multifocal IOL. Distance manifest refraction and visual acuity at several distances were determined; contrast sensitivity function (CSF), near-point stereo acuity, and subjective outcomes were assessed postoperatively at 2 weeks and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients with intended intermediate optimization and 5 patients with unintended intermediate optimization were prospectively evaluated. The mean manifest refraction spherical equivalent was stable from 2 weeks (-0.94 D+/-0.22 [SD]) to 12 months (-0.93+/-0.23 D) in the intermediate optimization eyes. Overall, postoperative mean binocular uncorrected near, intermediate, and distance visual acuities were 20/23, 20/23, and 20/22, respectively. No significant differences were found between best distance-corrected and uncorrected stereo acuity or between best distance-corrected and uncorrected binocular CSF under most conditions (P> .05). On questioning, 97% of patients had little or no difficulty seeing and were bothered occasionally or never by the visual fluctuation between the near range and intermediate range. CONCLUSION: Intermediate optimization with slight myopia in 1 eye after bilateral implantation of the multifocal IOL offered consistent good vision at all ranges, indicating it a safe option for patients who require good vision at intermediate ranges.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".