Visual acuity and higher-order aberrations with wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual acuity and higher-order aberrations (HOAs) after wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK). METHODS: This retrospective study comprised refraction-matched myopic eyes that had wavefront-guided (Visx Star S4 laser) or wavefront-optimized (WaveLight Allegretto Wave laser) LASIK targeted for emmetropia. Preoperative and postoperative manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) distance visual acuities, and preoperative and postoperative HOAs were compared. RESULTS: Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between the wavefront-guided and wavefront-optimized groups in age, sex, corneal thickness, MRSE, or HOAs (all P>.05). The mean MRSE was -2.88 diopters (D) +/- 2.6 (SD) and -2.96 +/- 2.6 D, respectively, preoperatively and -0.01 +/- 0.25 D and -0.02 +/- 0.33 D, respectively, postoperatively; 96% of all eyes were within +/-0.50 D of emmetropia postoperatively. There were no differences in UDVA, CDVA, MRSE, or HOAs between groups (all P>.05). The UDVA was 20/20 or better in 85% of eyes in the wavefront-guided group and 86% of eyes in the wavefront-optimized group. All eyes had 20/25 or better CDVA postoperatively; no eye lost 2 lines of CDVA. Fourteen eyes were converted from wavefront-guided to wavefront-optimized treatment because of poor limbal ring alignment (8 eyes), a wave scan not consistent with the manifest refraction (5 eyes), and no iris registration (1 eye). CONCLUSIONS: Wavefront-guided LASIK and wavefront-optimized LASIK produced equivalent visual outcomes and no differences in HOAs. Wavefront-guided treatment could not be performed in many eyes because of difficulties during wavefront measurement.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".