Wavefront-guided correction of ocular aberrations: Are phase plate and refractive surgery solutions equal?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wavefront-guided laser eye surgery has been recently introduced and holds the promise of correcting not only defocus and astigmatism in patients but also higher-order aberrations. Research is just beginning on the implementation of wavefront-guided methods in optical solutions, such as phase-plate-based spectacles, as alternatives to surgery. We investigate the theoretical differences between the implementation of wavefront-guided surgical and phase plate corrections. The residual aberrations of 43 model eyes are calculated after simulated refractive surgery and also after a phase plate is placed in front of the untreated eye. In each case, the current wavefront-guided paradigm that applies a direct map of the ocular aberrations to the correction zone is used. The simulation results demonstrate that an ablation map that is a Zernike fit of a direct transform of the ocular wavefront phase error is not as efficient in correcting refractive errors of sphere, cylinder, spherical aberration, and coma as when the same Zernike coefficients are applied to a phase plate, with statistically significant improvements from 2% to 6%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".