Bimanual microincisional phacoemulsification: the future of cataract surgery?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Bimanual microincisional cataract surgery has recently become a procedure of interest among cataract surgeons, and a number of trials have shown its potential as a minimally invasive cataract surgery. The purpose of this review is to examine the studies that have been published to date and to evaluate the potential of bimanual phacoemulsification as a method of cataract extraction. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have reinforced the safety of bimanual phacoemulsification. In particular, recently published studies have focused on evaluating various phacoemulsification technologies and their safety when used in bimanual phacoemulsification. Newly developed rollable hydrophilic acrylic ThinOptX lenses have been shown to be implantable in 2.2-mm incisions safely with good visual outcomes. SUMMARY: Bimanual phacoemulsification has been a potential technique for a number of years, but only recently have the technology, software, and technique advanced sufficiently to make bimanual phacoemulsification a feasible method of cataract extraction. Although the main disadvantage to bimanual phacoemulsification remains the lack of intraocular lenses that can fit through microincisions, necessitating the enlargement of corneal wounds for intraocular lens implantation, bimanual phacoemulsification has a number of advantages over traditional small-incision phacoemulsification. Theses advantages have been a source of interest for cataract surgeons and surgical companies who are now developing technologies that will permit the performance of truly microincisional cataract surgery.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it