Refractive expectations of patients having cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the refractive expectations of patients having elective cataract surgery. SETTING: Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, King's Mill Hospital, Sutton-in-Ashfield, and Kidderminster District Hospital, United Kingdom. METHODS: A prospective questionnaire study of patients attending a preoperative assessment clinic for elective cataract surgery was performed. Only first-eye cataract surgery patients were included. Patients were excluded if they had visually impairing ocular comorbidity or if they were mentally unable to complete the questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-nine questionnaires were received. Mean patient age was 74 years (range 41 to 97 years). Sixty-four percent of respondents were women, and 90% were retired. On 10-point Likert scales (0 lowest, 10 highest), median patient scores for the perceived likelihood of needing spectacles after surgery were 8 for both distance and near correction. Patients already wearing distance correction thought it significantly more likely that they would need distance glasses postoperatively than those who did not (median likelihood scores 9 and 1, respectively; P<.0001). Similar differences in expectations were demonstrated for near correction. Median score of the importance of not needing spectacles was 8 for both distance and near. Men scored this higher than women, but only for distance. There was a weak negative correlation between the importance of spectacle independence and patient age. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who already wear spectacles expect to need them after cataract surgery. Those not already wearing spectacles do not expect to need them. This latter group is at particular risk for refractive disappointment and complaint. In general, patients consider the opportunity to be free of glasses as very important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".