MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409418310 · doi:10.3928/1081-597x-20010302-22

Comparison of Laser in situ Keratomileusis Outcomes With the Nidek EC-5000 and LSX LaserSight Excimer Lasers

2001· article· en· W2409418310 on OpenAlex
Mohan Merchea, Al Tokarewicz

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refractive Surgery · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeratomileusisLASIKLaserExcimer laserAstigmatismOphthalmologyExcimerMedicineMaterials scienceOpticsOptometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.285 · 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