Impact of intraocular lens material and design on light scatter: In vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the typical in vitro straylight levels for intraocular lenses (IOLs) of different materials and designs. SETTING: Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Groningen, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Experimental study. METHODS: Two optical bench setups were used to determine baseline straylight levels of IOLs placed in a saline-filled cuvette: one for forward scatter positions between 0.6 and 3.0 degrees and one for positions up to 22.0 degrees. Line-spread functions were measured using the small-angle setup, and scattered light intensity was measured using the wide-angle setup. From these measurements, the angular dependent straylight parameter was calculated. Ten IOLs of different materials (hydrophobic and hydrophilic) and designs (monofocal or diffractive multifocal and spheric or aspheric) were studied, and their measured straylight levels were compared with the levels in a 20-year-old and a 70-year-old healthy noncataractous human crystalline lens. RESULTS: Irrespective of the material or design, monofocal IOLs had straylight levels below or close to those of a 20-year-old human crystalline lens. Diffractive multifocal IOLs had straylight levels higher than those of monofocal IOLs but less than those of a 70-year-old human crystalline lens. With increasing angle, hydrophobic IOLs showed a gradual decrease in straylight level. After an initial decrease, hydrophilic IOLs showed an increase in straylight level for larger angles. CONCLUSIONS: The baseline straylight levels of IOLs were design and material dependent (hydrophobic < hydrophilic; monofocal < diffractive multifocal). Most monofocal IOLs had straylight levels below the levels in a 20-year-old human crystalline lens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".