MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217571617 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2015.11.002

Angle-supported phakic intraocular lenses for the correction of myopia: Three-year follow-up

2015· article· en· W2217571617 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard V. Gimbel, Nicholas R. Norton, Anika Amritanand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsGimbel Eye Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDioptrePhakic intraocular lensMedicineOphthalmologySynechiaRefractive errorVisual acuityIntraocular lensMultifocal intraocular lensPhacoemulsificationOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient safety and refractive outcomes in eyes with an angle-supported phakic intraocular lens (pIOL), and to assess the correlation between rotation and corneal endothelial cell damage. SETTING: Gimbel Eye Centres, Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: This study included patients with moderate to high myopia (range -6.50 to -19.50 diopters [D]) who received the Acrysof Cachet pIOL. Outcome measures included uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), corrected distance visual acuity, manifest refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE), endothelial cell density (ECD), and IOL rotation. RESULTS: This study evaluated 119 eyes of 61 patients. The mean ECD decrease from preoperative measurements was 3.11% (n = 46), with a mean IOL rotation of 10.6 degrees (n = 35) at the 3-year postoperative visit. Of the 49 eyes at the 3-year visit measured for UDVA, 98.0% were 20/40 or better and 77.6% were 20/20 or better. The MRSE improved from a preoperative mean of -9.26 diopters (D) ± 2.43 (SD) (range -19.50 to -5.63 D) to -0.33 ± 0.61 D (range -3.12 to +0.71 D) at the 3-year visit. The residual refractive error was within ±0.50 D of the target refraction for 78.4% and within ±1.00 D for 92.2% of the 51 eyes. The study included one bilateral pIOL removal due to endothelial cell loss, one case of synechia, and one case of subtle pupil ovalization. CONCLUSIONS: No correlation between IOL rotation and ECD decrease was found (R(2) = 0.0143); the pIOL provided promising refractive outcomes and acceptable safety in patients with moderate to high myopia. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgerySame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207