Evaluation of a Novel Zonular Tension Restoring Accommodating Silicone IOL Design: Pilocarpine and Cyclopentolate-Induced Effect 20 Months after Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose . To investigate a novel zonular‐stress restoring accommodating 1‐piece silicone IOL. Setting . Angeles City, Philippines. Design . Prospective randomized bilateral study. Methods . Each patient received a study IOL (ActaLens™, Emmetrope, La Canada, CA) in one eye and a control IOL (CrystaLens® AO, B&L, USA, or an AcrySof IQ®, Alcon, USA) in the contralateral eye to allow for intraindividual comparison. At the 20‐month follow‐up, two measurement days were set to measure all eyes before and after instilling 2% pilocarpine on the first day and 1% cyclopentolate on the second measurement day using an optical biometry device (Lenstar, Haag‐Streit AG, Switzerland), respectively. PCO was graded by two examiners independently at the slit lamp. Results . In total, 16 eyes of 8 patients were included. In the study group and the control group, the pilocarpine‐induced ACD shift was 0.32 mm (SD: 0.12) ( p = 0.014) and 0.04 mm (SD: 0.16) ( p = 0.854), respectively. In the study group and the control group, the mean cyclopentolate‐induced ACD shift was 0.14 (SD: 0.06) ( p = 0.014) and 0.03 mm (SD: 0.03) ( p = 0.181), respectively. PCO and Nd : YAG rates were higher in the study group, but differences were not found to be significant (AcrySof vs. ActaLens p = 0.100 and CrystaLens vs. ActaLens p = 0.174). Conclusion . The investigated IOL is a novel concept for an accommodating IOL, and results showed a moderate pilocarpine‐induced forward shift of the IOL 20 months following implantation. For all patients, the investigated IOL seems to have a higher PCO rate compared to standard monofocal IOLs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".