MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Short term LASIK outcomes using the Technolas 217C excimer laser and Hansatome microkeratome in 46 708 eyes treated between 1998 and 2001

2012· article· en· W2170129929 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Z. Reinstein, William B Threlfall, Randall Cook, Emma Cremonesi, Hugo Sutton, Timothy J. Archer, Marine Gobbé

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrokeratomeMedicineLASIKAstigmatismVisual acuityOphthalmologyExcimer laserKeratomileusisOptometrySurgeryLaserOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of a high-volume, multi-surgeon, multicentre LASIK corporation between 1998 and 2001. METHODS: 46,708 eyes of 24,138 consecutive patients with myopic astigmatism had undergone LASIK using the Bausch & Lomb Technolas 217C excimer laser and Hansatome microkeratome. The study included 38 surgeons operating at 11 surgical centres. 31 surgeons underwent standardised training regardless of previous experience, which included didactic, observership and proctorship components. Mean attempted spherical equivalent refraction correction was -4.02 ± 1.93 D (range -0.50 to -12.00 D). Mean attempted cylinder correction was 0.78 ± 0.69 D (range 0.00 to 3.50 D). Median follow-up was 3 months. RESULTS: Postoperative data with at least 1 month follow-up was available in 35,360 eyes (76%) of 18,195 patients. Predictability: mean deviation from intended spherical equivalent refraction correction was -0.21 ± 0.47 D with 81% of eyes within ±0.50 D and 95% of eyes within ±1.00 D. EFFICACY: uncorrected distance visual acuity was 20/20 in 71% of eyes and 20/40 in 95% of eyes. SAFETY: two or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity were lost in 0.57% of eyes. Postoperative corrected distance visual acuity was worse than 20/40 in 0.029% of eyes. CONCLUSIONS: The short-term results of a high-volume, multi-surgeon LASIK Corporation were comparable with those reported in the Food and Drug Administration clinical trials during the same period.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207