Comparison of Clinical Results between Heparin Surface Modified Hydrophilic Acrylic and Hydrophobic Acrylic Intraocular Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical results of heparin surface modified (HSM) hydrophilic acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) with those of hydrophobic acrylic IOL. METHODS: One hundred patients with cataract were randomized to receive one of acrylic foldable IOLs after phacoemulsification: HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL (n=50) BioVue3 (BioVue, OII, Ontario, CA, USA) and hydrophobic acrylic IOL (n=50) Sensar (AR40e, AMO, Santa Ana, CA, USA). Bestcorrected visual acuity and refractive error were measured at 1 week, 2 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery in both IOL groups. To assess posterior capsular opacification (PCO), digital retroillumination image of posterior capsule was analyzed at 12 months using POCOman software. RESULTS: Best-corrected visual acuity (log MAR) was 0.032+/-0.082 in BioVue3 group and 0.034+/-0.077 in Sensar group at 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (p=0.554). Refractive error was -0.247+/-0.821 diopter in BioVue3 group and -0.264+/-0.808 diopter in Sensar group at 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference of refractive error between the two groups (p=0.909). At 12 months, BioVue3 IOL group had a lower percentage area and severity of PCO than Sensar group. However, it was not statistically significant (p=0.349, p=0.288). No Nd:YAG capsulotomy was performed in BioVue3 group while it was required in two eyes (4.0%) in Sensar group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically significant difference of postoperative visual acuity, refractive error and degree of PCO between HSM hydrophilic acrylic IOL and hydrophobic acrylic IOL.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".