MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944798021 · doi:10.15353/cjo.76.527

Overview of the Main Types of Contact Lenses for Aphakic Children Under 5

2014· article· en· W2944798021 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie-Eve Corbeil, Amélie Ganivet, Langis Michaud

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntraocular Surgery and Lenses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptometryContact lensLens (geology)Refractive errorSilicone hydrogelAphakiaOphthalmologyMedicineOpticsVisual acuityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contact lenses are often the first choice for visual correction of aphakic children. There are several types of lens that can successfully be fitted to correct ametropia, stimulate visual selecting, and maintain ocular health. Several factors are important for choosing the type of lens. Usually, the first lens fitted is made of silicone (Elasofilcon A, Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, Ny) with an evolution to a custom silicone hydrogel lens over time. Although fitting in young aphakic children presents many challenges, contact lenses often remain the best option for the correction of refractive errors after congenital cataract surgery. An overview of the main types of contact lens available for aphakic children and their characteristics are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicIntraocular Surgery and LensesFrench-language works237,207