The effect of Lasik surgery on myopic anisometropes’ sensory eye dominance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasik is a common surgery for treating anisometropia. In this study, we asked a specific question: what's the effect of Lasik surgery on anisometropes' sensory eye dominance ? Fifteen myopic anisometropes (mean age: 23 ± 6.9 years old; 6 females) participated in our experiment. We quantitatively measured participants' sensory eye dominance before and after the Lasik surgery using a binocular phase combination paradigm. We found no significant change of sensory eye dominance within 16 weeks (measured between 8 to 96 days, for one or two repetitions) after the surgery (t(14) = -1.44, p = 0.17). A further following on eight patients showed that patients' two eyes were much more balanced at 16 weeks or more (measured one or two times between 112 to 408 days) after the surgery (t(7) = -3.79, p = 0.007). Our results suggest that the benefit of Lasik surgery on anisometropes' sensory eye dominance is not immediate, a long-term 'adaptation' period (16 weeks or more) is necessary to enable the surgery to be truly effective.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".