Brown discoloration of acrylic hydrophobic intraocular lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We report a case series of brown discoloration of Abbott Medical Optics, USA, acrylic intraocular lens (IOLs; AABOO, ZCBOO, and ZMBOO) after cataract operation. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with brown discoloration of their IOLs postoperatively during the period from March 2013 to October 2013 at the Singapore National Eye Centre were consecutively identified. METHODS: Distance best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure, slit-lamp examination, colour fundus photographs, flare meter reading, endothelial cell count, dilated fundus examination, as well as colour discrimination test on the Lanthony D 15 Hue test were performed. RESULTS: Sixteen eyes of 14 patients were found to have evenly brown discoloration of varying degrees of acrylic IOL postphacoemulsification. This included 11 AABOO IOLs, 3 ZCBOO IOLs, and 2 ZMBOO IOLs. All had uneventful surgery except one who required anterior vitrectomy for posterior capsule rupture. One patient had uneventful operation but subsequently developed pigment dispersion glaucoma with tunnel vision and required a trabeculectomy. Mean time from operation to reporting date was 143 days (range 1-327 days). Pre- and postoperative month 6 BCVA was logMAR 0.54 and logMAR 0.13, respectively. None of the patients had loss of lines of BCVA. The desaturated Lanthony D 15 Hue test was abnormal in 8 out of the 16 eyes. None required IOL explantation. CONCLUSIONS: Varying degrees of brown discoloration may occur in today's modern hydrophobic acrylic IOLs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".