MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060223459 · doi:10.1097/ico.0b013e31815ea268

Early Experience With Implantable Collamer Lens in the Management of Hyperopia After Radial Keratotomy

2008· article· en· W2060223459 on OpenAlexaff
Sathish Srinivasan, Antony Drake, Sheldon Herzig

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHerzig Eye Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadial keratotomyMedicineRefractive errorVisual acuityOphthalmologyPhakic intraocular lensRetrospective cohort studyAnisometropiaOptometrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report the initial experience of the use of implantable collamer lens (ICL) in the management of hyperopia after radial keratotomy (RK). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective chart review. Four eyes of 3 patients with secondary hyperopic shift after myopic RK had a mean spherical equivalent of 5.31 D (range, 3.25-9 D) on presentation. All of them underwent ICL implantation to correct the refractive error. RESULTS: There were no intraoperative complications. At a mean follow-up of 5.5 months (range, 3-7 months), the mean uncorrected visual acuity improved from 20/130 preoperatively to 20/24 postoperatively, and the mean spherical equivalent decreased from 5.31 D preoperatively to 0.08 D postoperatively. At 1-month follow-up, all eyes had an uncorrected visual acuity better than or equal to preoperative best spectacle-corrected visual acuity. Two eyes were within 0.25 D and all were within 0.5 D of the predicted refractive target. CONCLUSIONS: ICL implantation is an effective surgical option to consider in the management of hyperopia after RK. However, a large cohort and longer follow-up are needed to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of this procedure in this clinical setting.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorneaSame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207