Clinically significant laser in situ keratomileusis flap striae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes before and after irrigation of clinically significant laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) flap striae. SETTING: Multisurgeon multicenter standardized protocol practice. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control series. METHODS: Eyes with striae necessitating flap relift and irrigation were identified. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were collected. Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: = 0.9674; P < .001). Striae induced a small hyperopic shift that reversed after the relift (mean 0.22 diopter [D] ± 0.52 [SD] versus -0.02 ± 0.45 D) (P < .001). After relifting, 68.0%, 87.0%, and 96.0% of eyes had an uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) of 20/20, 20/25, 20/40 or better versus 25.0%, 55.0%, and 84.0%, respectively, before the relift (P < .001). Thirteen percent fewer striae-treated eyes achieved a UDVA of 20/20. Before relifting, 51.0% of striae eyes lost 1 or more lines of corrected distance visual acuity, with a safety index reverting to control values (0.99 versus 1.00) (P > .05) after the relift. A laser refractive enhancement was performed in 6.28% of relifted striae eyes versus 3.04% in nonstriae control eyes. CONCLUSIONS: Flap striae requiring surgeon intervention occurred in 0.79% of eyes. Higher preoperative SE values were associated with an exponential increase risk for striae. Treatment by lifting and irrigation significantly improved the accuracy, efficacy, and safety to a level close to that of contralateral control eyes, although striae-treated eyes were more likely to need excimer laser retreatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".