Photorefractive Keratectomy With Customized Segmental Ablation to Correct Irregular Astigmatism After Laser in situ Keratomileusis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To correct irregular astigmatism after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) with customized segmental ablation using the Nidek OPD-Scan (ARK-10000) to guide the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser with the Final Fit software. METHODS: One eye of a patient that had undergone LASIK and one enhancement was treated using photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) with customized segmental ablation. OPD-Scan maps were analyzed before and after surgery. The Final Fit software was used to link the OPD-Scan to the EC-5000 laser to guide the customized ablation. RESULTS: At 1 month postoperatively, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity had improved from 20/20-2 to 20/15-2, the patient's subjective evaluation of vision was markedly improved, and the postoperative OPD-Scan maps appeared more regular. CONCLUSION: Customized segmental ablation can be performed using the Nidek OPD-Scan and Final Fit software to improve best spectacle-corrected visual acuity and minimize irregular astigmatism, which may result from prior surgical procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".