MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Probability Model of the Inaccuracy of Residual Stromal Thickness Prediction to Reduce the Risk of Ectasia After LASIK Part II: Quantifying Population Risk

2006· article· en· W27303644 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Refractive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCorneal surgery and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrokeratomeEctasiaLASIKMedicinePopulationCorneal topographyOphthalmologyAblationResidualCorneaSurgeryMathematicsKeratomileusisAlgorithmInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To derive a statistical model to estimate the rate of excessive keratectomy depth below a selected cut-off residual stromal thickness (RST) given a minimum target RST and specific Clinical Protocol; apply the model to estimate the RST below which ectasia appears likely to occur and back-calculate the safe minimum target RST that should be used given a specific Clinical Protocol. METHODS: Myopia and corneal thickness distribution were modeled for a population of 5212 eyes that underwent LASIK. The probability distribution of predicted target RST error (Part I) was used to calculate the rate of excessive keratectomy depth for this series. All treatments were performed using the same Clinical Protocol; one surgeon, Moria LSK-One microkeratome, NIDEK EC-5000 excimer laser, Orbscan pachymetry, and a minimum target RST of 250 microm--the Vancouver Clinical Protocol. The model estimated the RST below which ectasia appears likely to occur and back-calculated the safe minimum target RST. These values were recalculated for a series of microkeratomes using published flap thickness statistics as well as for the Clinical Protocol of one of the authors-the London Clinical Protocol. RESULTS: In the series of 5212 eyes, 6 (0.12%) cases of ectasia occurred. The model predicted an RST of 191 microm for ectasia to occur and that a minimum target RST of 329 microm would have reduced the -rate of ectasia to 1: 1,000,000 for the Vancouver Clinical Protocol. The model predicted that the choice of microkeratome varied the rate of ectasia between 0.01 and 11,623 eyes per million and the safe minimum target RST between 220 and 361 microm. The model predicted the rate of ectasia would have been 0.000003: 1,000,000 had the London Clinical Protocol been used for the Vancouver case series. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be no universally safe minimum target RST to assess suitability for LASIK largely due to the disparity in accuracy and reproducibility of microkeratome flap thickness. This model may be used as a tool to evaluate the risk of ectasia due to excessive keratectomy depth and help determine the minimum target RST given a particular Clinical Protocol.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.237 · 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