Gauging Interest of the General Public in Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis Eye Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess interest among members of the general public in laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) surgery and how levels of interest in this procedure have changed over time in the United States and other countries. METHODS: Using the Google Trends Web site, we determined the weekly frequency of queries involving the term "LASIK" from January 1, 2007, through January 1, 2011, in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and India. We fit separate regression models for each of the countries to assess whether residents of these countries differed in their querying rates on specific dates and over time. Similar analyses were performed to compare 4 US states. Additional regression models compared general public interest in LASIK surgery before and after the release of a 2008 Food and Drug Administration report describing complaints associated with this procedure. RESULTS: During 2007 to 2011, the Google query rate for "LASIK" was highest among persons residing in India, followed by the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. During this time period, the query rate declined by 40% in the United States, 24% in India, and 22% in the United Kingdom, and it increased by 8% in Canada. In all 4 of the US states examined, the query rate declined-by 52% in Florida, 56% in New York, 54% in Texas, and 42% in California. Interest in LASIK declined further among US citizens after the Food and Drug Administration report release. CONCLUSIONS: Interest among the general public in LASIK surgery has been waning in recent years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".