MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409291254 · doi:10.3928/1081-597x-20040903-12

The Effect of Laser in situ Keratomileusis on Low Contrast Vision

2004· article· en· W2409291254 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph Anthony Tumbocon, Palanisamy Suresh, Allan R. Slomovic, David S. Rootman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refractive Surgery · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeratomileusisLASIKContrast (vision)OphthalmologyVisual acuityAstigmatismMedicineOptometryOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) on low contrast visual acuity. METHODS: Thirty eyes of 15 LASIK patients with myopia and astigmatism were evaluated preoperatively, and 1 and 3 months postoperatively. High contrast visual acuity (HCVA), low contrast visual acuity (LCVA), and contrast threshold were determined. RESULTS: Mean spherical correction (SE) was -3.24 +/- 1.90 D; 16 eyes had a mean SE between -1.00 and -3.00 D, and 14 eyes were between -3.25 and -6.50 D. There was no significant change in HCVA observed at 1 and 3 months in any eye. There was a decrease in LCVA in eyes with a correction >3 D SE at 1 month (P=.04), which returned to normal at 3 months (P=.13). There was an increase in the contrast threshold at 1 month (P=.016). When eyes were divided into groups, those with >3D SE correction had an increase in contrast threshold at 1 month (P=.002); no change was seen in eyes with <3D SE correction (P=.15). At 3 months, contrast threshold was similar to baseline values in all eyes (P=.226). CONCLUSION: LASIK transiently decreased low contrast visual function in patients with greater than 3.00 D of myopic correction.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Refractive SurgerySame topicCorneal surgery and disordersFrench-language works237,207