The effect of refractive surgery on blur thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure blur thresholds before and after refractive surgery. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary eye hospital in South India. Blur thresholds were measured for 30 young adult myopic patients 1 month prior to and after refractive surgery. Patients were asked to report three stages of blur, namely Detectable Blur (DB), Bothersome Blur (BB), and Non-resolvable Blur (NB). Blur was created by adding plus lenses (in steps of 0.12D) over their optimal subjective refraction. The blur judgments were made both monocularly and binocularly when looking through a 3 mm artificial pupil at one line above the best-corrected visual acuity. RESULTS: A total of 30 participants were included in this study (mean age = 25.5 ± 3.8 (20-36) years; 77% female). The mean binocular preoperative blur of this group was: DB = 0.39 ± 0.26D, BB = 0.74 ± 0.28D and NB = 1.04 ± 0.42D. The corresponding mean binocular blur one-month post-operatively was DB = 0.46 ± 0.28D, BB = 0.83 ± 0.35D, and NB = 1.21 ± 0.44D. Although there was a marginal increase in the blur thresholds postoperatively, the difference was not statistically significant (DB: P = 0.320; BB: P = 0.229; NB: P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: All three blur thresholds showed an insignificant minimal increase at 1 month post-operatively suggesting that patients adapt to the induced blur following refractive surgery. A longer follow up would reveal how the adaptation to blur would change with time.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".