<p>Disagreement Between Theoretical and Actual Phorcides Outcomes: Is Phorcides Inferior to Treating on the Manifest Refraction? [Letter]</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictions Comparing Three Different Programming Methods." 1 In the Manifest group, the calculated theoretical outcomes revealed an unexpectedly elevated postoperative refractive astigmatism average error of 0.56 0.22 D. 1 This large amount of theoretical postoperative cylinder was not replicated in a recent real-world clinical study by the same authors, comparing actual topography-guided LASIK outcomes in Phorcides versus manifest-treated eyes. Surprisingly, this inferior postoperative SEQ and refractive astigmatism accuracy with Phorcides was accompanied with a significantly better rate of postoperative 20/16 UDVA. 2 This clinical finding of having superior visual acuity despite inferior refractive accuracy is atypical and inconsistent with current laser vision correction literature. hese conflicting results highlight that the current theoretical outcomes study 1 does not reflect real-world manifest-treated eyes outcomes, where manifest eyes are superior to Phorcides eyes in terms of refractive astigmatism and SEQ accuracy. 2 What could explain the significant disagreement between these poor theoretical 1 versus excellent real-world 2 manifest-treatment outcomes?
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".