MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076377661 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2013.12.011

Multifocal intraocular lenses: Relative indications and contraindications for implantation

2014· review· en· W2076377661 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultifocal intraocular lensOptometryBest practiceMedical physicsSelection (genetic algorithm)Clinical PracticeOphthalmologyPhacoemulsificationFamily medicineComputer scienceManagementVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: This article presents an extensive overview of best clinical practice pertaining to selection and use of multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) currently available in the United States. Relevant preoperative diagnostic evaluations, patient selection criteria, counseling, and managing expectations are reviewed, as well as how to approach patients with underlying ocular intricacies or challenges and best practices for intraoperative challenges during planned implantation of a multifocal IOL. Managing the unhappy multifocal IOL patient if implantation has been performed is also addressed. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.356 · 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