Evaluating newer generation intraocular lens calculation formulas in manual versus femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the refractive accuracy of the Haigis, Barrett Universal II (Barrett), and Hill-radial basis function 2.0 (Hill-RBF) intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations formulas in eyes undergoing manual cataract surgery (MCS) and refractive femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (ReLACS). METHODS: This was a REB-approved, retrospective interventional comparative case series of 158 eyes of 158 patients who had preoperative biometry completed using the IOL Master 700 and underwent implantation of a Tecnis IOL following uncomplicated cataract surgery using either MCS or ReLACS. Target spherical equivalence (SE) was predicted using the Haigis, Barrett, and Hill-RBF formulas. An older generation formula (Hoffer Q) was included in the analysis. Mean refractive error (ME) was calculated one month postoperatively. The lens factors of all formulas were retrospectively optimized to set the ME to 0 for each formula across all eyes. The median absolute errors (MedAE) and the proportion of eyes achieving an absolute error (AE) within 0.5 diopters (D) were compared between the two formulas among MCS and ReLACS eyes, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 158 eyes studied, 64 eyes underwent MCS and 94 eyes underwent ReLACS. Among MCS eyes, the MedAE did not differ between the formulas (P=0.59), however among ReLACS eyes, Barrett and Hill-RBF were more accurate (P=0.001). Barrett and Hill-RBF were both more likely to yield AE<0.5 D among both groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: The Barrett and Hill-RBF formula lead to greater refractive accuracy and likelihood of refractive success when compare to Haigis in eyes undergoing ReLACS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".