Emmetropia: Why we should do immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To research and discuss the reasoning behind the performance of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) in the context of achieving emmetropia and visual restoration. SETTING: York Finch Eye Associates, Toronto, Canada METHODS: A literature review of pertinent articles and books relevant to visual function and bilateral cataract surgery. The website of the International Society of Bilateral Cataract Surgeons (ISBCS) was also reviewed. RESULTS: The logic of human destiny and progress dictates that we will move to ISBCS to achieve better restoration of vision than achievable with delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgeries (DSBCS). ISBCS restores the visual system, whereas DSBCS can be an impediment to binocularity. Caution is required in moving to ISBCS, and reasonably strict protocols should be observed. The additional cost of performing DSBCS to a health care system is unacceptable for the miniscule additional risk of ISBCS. DISCUSSION: As we move to ever more predictable surgical results, routinely achieving emmetropia, monovision, multifocality or pseudoaccomodation, the further enhancement of our surgeries with ISBCS is often perceived by the patient as the greatest of all recent advances in cataract surgery
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".