Comparison of Laser in situ Keratomileusis Outcomes With the Nidek EC-5000 and LSX LaserSight Excimer Lasers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the results of laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) for myopia with and without astigmatism using the Nidek EC-5000 and LaserSight LSX excimer laser systems. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of refractive outcomes with each laser was conducted. Approximately 2,900 myopic and astigmatic treatments up to -10.00 D (spherical equivalent refraction) were analyzed using refractive outcomes analysis software. RESULTS: At 6 months postoperatively, 78% of patients treated with the Nidek EC-5000 laser and 53% of patients treated with the LaserSight LSX laser were within +/-0.50 D of the intended correction. CONCLUSION: A difference in safety, stability, and efficacy of LASIK was found that favored the Nidek EC-5000 excimer laser.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".