Visual and refractive status at different focal distances after implantation of the ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the visual acuity and determine the refraction in emmetropic pseudophakic eyes at different focal distances after implantation of the AcrySof SA 60D3 ReSTOR multifocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Alcon Laboratories). SETTING: Private clinical practice. METHODS: Thirty-seven eyes of 20 patients received the ReSTOR IOL. Visual acuity was measured at several distances, and best distance corrected, best intermediate corrected (60 cm), and best near corrected (33 cm) visual acuities were determined 3 months after surgery. Subjective outcomes were assessed by a questionnaire. RESULTS: Postoperatively, 36 of 37 eyes (97.3%) were within +/-1.00 diopter (D) of the manifest refraction spherical equivalent and cylinder. Monocularly, the mean best distance corrected, best distance corrected intermediate, and best distance corrected near visual acuities were 20/20, 20/46, and 20/23, respectively. The best distance corrected acuities at 40, 50, 60, and 70 cm were significantly worse than the best distance corrected and best distance corrected near acuities (P<.05). On the questionnaire, all patients noted intermediate blur, but 75% had little or no difficulty seeing and were bothered by the blur occasionally or never. The mean additional add to best distance correction for best intermediate corrected visual acuity was +1.20 diopters (D) +/- 0.27 D or -1.68 +/- 0.24 D and for best near corrected visual acuity, -0.26 +/- 0.24 D. CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the ReSTOR IOL offered excellent visual acuity at distance and near distance and functional visual acuity in the intermediate range. For patients who need excellent vision at intermediate range, leaving 1 eye with distance myopia or hyperopia to compensate for intermediate vision may provide consistent good binocular vision over the full range in cases of bilateral implantation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".