Effect of Nd:YAG Laser Capsulotomy on Refraction in Multifocal Apodized Diffractive Pseudophakia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect on refraction of neodymium:YAG (Nd:YAG) laser posterior capsulotomy for posterior capsule opacification (PCO), and to evaluate the correlation between automated and subjective refraction in multifocal apodized diffractive pseudophakia. METHODS: A retrospective study of 75 pseudophakic eyes (50 patients) with multifocal apodized diffractive pseudophakia, treated for PCO with Nd:YAG laser posterior capsulotomy, was performed. Pre- and postintervention values of refractive and visual parameters were compared. The outcomes of autorefraction and subjective refraction were also compared. RESULTS: Uncorrected and corrected distance visual acuity improved significantly after Nd:YAG capsulotomy (P<.001). No significant changes were noted in defocus equivalent, astigmatic power vectors J(0) and J(45), and overall blurring strength in subjective refraction and autorefraction. Spherical equivalent changed significantly in autorefraction (P=.008), but not in subjective refraction. Autorefraction and subjective refraction were highly correlated in spherical equivalent, defocus equivalent, and blurring strength (r(2)>0.59). In approximately 7% of eyes, a change of more than 0.50 diopters in spherical equivalent in subjective refraction occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In most cases, Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy in patients with multifocal pseudophakia did not result in a change in refraction. However, 7% of eyes experienced a significant change in subjective refraction. Autorefraction correlated well with subjective refraction in apodized diffractive multifocal IOLs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".