Response to: WaveLight<sup>&reg;</sup> Contoura topography-guided planning: contribution of anterior corneal higher-order aberrations and posterior corneal astigmatism to manifest refractive astigmatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Response to: WaveLightReg Contoura topography-guided planning: contribution of anterior corneal higher-order aberrations and posterior corneal astigmatism to manifest refractive astigmatism Manoj Motwani Motwani Lasik Institute, San Diego, CA, USA I would like to thank Wallerstein et al1 for his thoughtful research letter, but I do have some issue with the analysis. The paper references only Part 1 of the LYRA Protocol series, and not the other two parts. Part 3 provides the data for treatment with Contoura-measured astigmatism using the LYRA Protocol (termed anterior corneal astigmatism [ACA]). The concept of anterior corneal higher-order aberrations (CHOA) modifying the manifest refractive astigmatism (RA) was illustrated in an ovalization form to demonstrate why the LYRA Protocol works. These interactions are three-dimensional (3D) in nature, and we are demonstrating with 2D CHOA maps from Contoura. These maps are impacted by user/technical error, and also by epithe¬lial compensation of the CHOA, adding a layer of inaccuracy in these comparisons. In fact, the concept of epithelial compensation affecting the ability to measure and treat CHOA is not part of any current refractive system, Contoura, Ray tracing, etc. The static Gullstrand model has mainly been used, ignoring the fact that epithelial compensation causes variability. View the original paper by Wallerstein and colleagues.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".