WaveLight® Contoura topography-guided planning: contribution of anterior corneal higher-order aberrations and posterior corneal astigmatism to manifest refractive astigmatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WaveLight® Contoura topography-guided planning: contribution of anterior corneal higher-order aberrations and posterior corneal astigmatism to manifest refractive astigmatism Avi Wallerstein,1,2 Mathieu Gauvin,1,2 Mark Cohen2,3 1Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2LASIK MD, Montreal, QC, Canada; 3Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, CanadaClinical refractive astigmatism (RA) and topography-measured anterior corneal astigmatism (ACA) are rarely identical in magnitude and axis.1 This difference, when expressed vectorially, is termed ocular residual astigmatism (ORA).1 What accounts for this difference remains a topic that needs further research, and has implications as to what refraction to treat with topography-guided excimer laser ablations in order to maximize outcomes.1 This research letter investigates aspects of two contributing factors: posterior corneal astigmatism (PCA) and anterior corneal higher-order aberrations (CHOAs).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".