Comparison of Laser in situ Keratomileusis Outcomes With the Nidek EC-5000 and Meditec Mel 70 Excimer Lasers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report refractive outcomes of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia with and without astigmatism using the Nidek EC-5000 and Meditec Mel 70 excimer laser systems. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of refractive outcomes with each laser was conducted. Approximately 5700 eyes treated for myopia and myopic astigmatism were analyzed. Preoperative sphere ranged from -0.25 to -15.50 D and cylinder ranged from -0.75 to -5.50 D. All statistical analyses were performed by Datagraph med version 2.8 refractive analysis software. RESULTS: With the Nidek EC-5000 at 6 months after LASIK, mean spherical equivalent refraction was -0.24 D with 72% of eyes within +/- 0.50 D. In the Meditec cohort, the mean spherical equivalent was -0.54 D with 55% of eyes +/- 0.50 D. CONCLUSION: Eyes treated for myopia and astigmatism with either of these lasers showed early refractive stability and similar efficacy. Higher incidences of epithelial ingrowth and haze were present in the Meditec treated eyes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".