Canadian Opinions on Refractive Surgery and Approaches to Presbyopia Correction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the opinions of Canadian ophthalmologists on refractive and presbyopia-correcting surgeries. METHODS: We distributed an online survey to the Canadian Ophthalmological Society members, covering laser refractive surgery (LRS), femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS), lenticular refractive surgery (lenRS) that includes cataract refractive surgery (CRS) with premium intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, and presbyopia correction. RESULTS: There were 68 (7.6%) total respondents. Most respondents would not consider LRS (62.5%) nor FLACS (73.9%) for themselves. Male sex and performance of LRS or FLACS was significantly associated with consideration of these procedures for self. Most respondents (59.3%) would consider lenRS for themselves. The top method of personal presbyopia correction was spectacles, chosen by 52.5%. CONCLUSIONS: When surveying the wide body of Canadian ophthalmologists, most respondents preferred spectacle correction of presbyopia and would consider lenRS, but not LRS or FLACS for themselves. Surgeons performing these procedures were more likely to consider them for self.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it