MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postoperative complications in laser in situ keratomileusis

2000· review· en· W2315645485 on OpenAlexaff
Nader G Iskander, N Timothy Peters, Ellen Anderson Penno, Howard V. Gimbel

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsGimbel Eye Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLASIKKeratomileusisMedicineAstigmatismOptometryOphthalmologySurgeryCornea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) has become the most common procedure to correct refractive errors in North America. Increasing numbers of patients and surgeons are choosing LASIK in the management of low and moderate myopia, astigmatism, and hyperopia. LASIK presents a unique group of postoperative challenges and complications. It is important to be able to identify these complications in the early and late postoperative periods and to provide effective management. In this article, we review the most commonly encountered early and late postoperative complications after LASIK and the most current methods in prevention and 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations53
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OphthalmologySame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207