<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. 2 The reported empirical postoperative astigmatism error average in the Manifest group was as low as 0.15 D, fourfold better than that reported in the current theoretical outcomes study. 1 In the current theoretical study, 1 only 56% of Manifest eyes showed a refractive astigmatism error of 0.50 D or less, compared to 96% of eyes in the real-world clinical study. 2 In addition, 15% of Manifest eyes exhibited an "outlier" postoperative refractive astigmatism error of 1.00 D or greater, compared to only 1% in the real-world study. 2 The real-world clinical study further revealed that the refractive astigmatism accuracy was statistically inferior in Phorcides eyes that were matched to the FDA study criteria.2 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.3 These 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?In the theoretical study, vector analyses of postoperative cylindrical errors and programmed cylindrical laser treatment values were used to calculate expected outcomes that in theory may have been obtained using either Manifest, LYRA or Phorcides treatment.Using this methodology, a successful plano postoperative eye treated using the Contoura-measured anterior corneal astigmatism (LYRA protocol) with 1.00 D of difference between manifest and topographical cylinder
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 | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".