Prospective Randomized Comparison of Simultaneous and Sequential Bilateral Photorefractive Keratectomy for the Correction of Myopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of simultaneous bilateral photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 52 patients (104 eyes) with myopia less than -6 diopters entered in this prospective trial and randomized to simultaneous or sequential bilateral PRK. Main outcome measures were uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA), percentage of eyes within +/-0.5 D of attempted outcome, present pain intensity (PPI) and total pain rating index (PRI(R)T) scores resulting from McGill the Pain Questionnaire, subjective symptoms, haze, and patient satisfaction. Follow-up extended to 14 months. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in UCVA (P=0.996) and percentage of eyes within +/-0.5 D of attempted correction (P=0.932). Present pain intensity and PRI(R)T scores were significantly higher in the sequential group (P=0.037; P=0.034). The percentage of satisfied patients after bilateral PRK was significantly higher in the simultaneous group (P=0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous bilateral PRK was safe and effective, without any significant difference from sequential treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".