New algorithm for toric intraocular lens power calculation considering the posterior corneal astigmatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations of a new algorithm that incorporates the effect of posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA). SETTING: Abbott Medical Optics, Inc., Groningen, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Retrospective case report. METHODS: In eyes implanted with toric IOLs, the exact vergence formula of the Tecnis toric calculator was used to predict refractive astigmatism from preoperative biometry, surgeon-estimated surgically induced astigmatism (SIA), and implanted IOL power, with and without including the new PCA algorithm. For each calculation method, the error in predicted refractive astigmatism was calculated as the vector difference between the prediction and the actual refraction. Calculations were also made using postoperative keratometry (K) values to eliminate the potential effect of incorrect SIA estimates. RESULTS: The study comprised 274 eyes. The PCA algorithm significantly reduced the centroid error in predicted refractive astigmatism (P < .001). With the PCA algorithm, the centroid error reduced from 0.50 @ 1 to 0.19 @ 3 when using preoperative K values and from 0.30 @ 0 to 0.02 @ 84 when using postoperative K values. Patients who had anterior corneal against-the-rule, with-the-rule, and oblique astigmatism had improvement with the PCA algorithm. In addition, the PCA algorithm reduced the median absolute error in all groups (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the new PCA algorithm decreased the error in the prediction of residual refractive astigmatism in eyes implanted with toric IOLs. Therefore, the new PCA algorithm, in combination with an exact vergence IOL power calculation formula, led to an increased predictability of toric IOL power.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".