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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.167
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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