MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808502633 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v10n7p128

Quality of Life After Cataract Surgery in Jordan

2018· article· en· W2808502633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khalid Al-Zubi, Maali Hijazeen, Rana M. Nasser

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCataract surgeryQuality of life (healthcare)Thematic analysisMedicineBlindnessVisual acuityOptometryQualitative researchSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Cataract surgery is used for the removal of cloudy lens of eyes to reduce chances of blindness or any kind of visual impairments. The surgery is helpful to treat vision impairment, reduce chances of blindness, and bring positive impacts on quality of life among patients. The study aims to demonstrate key improvements in quality of life in terms of visual acuity and general quality of life after cataract surgery in Amman, Jordan.METHODS: The effect of cataract surgery on quality of life is assessed by using qualitative research methodology based on interviews of patients that have undergone cataract surgery. After collection of data, it is organized in forms of themes, and thematic analysis method was used for analysis of these themes.RESULTS: The outcomes obtained from data collected from participants have provided evidences that quality of life of participants has been improved after this surgery. Moreover, this study has also revealed that cataract surgery is effective to improve quality of life of participants by providing psychological, social, and emotional support.CONCLUSION: The study has concluded that cataract surgery in Jordan not only improve quality of life in terms of visual acuity, but also bring improvements in psychological and mental wellness of a person.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.379 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207