Simultaneous bilateral cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of simultaneous bilateral cataract surgery (SBCS). SETTING: York Finch Eye Associates and Humber River Regional Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the results of 1020 consecutive patients (2040 eyes) who had SBCS by endolenticular phacoemulsification through a clear corneal incision on the corneal steep axis with foldable posterior chamber intraocular lens implantation. The surgeries were performed by the same surgeon from January 1996 to January 2002 as 2 consecutive independent procedures under topical and intracameral anesthesia. Outcome measures included intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative uncorrected and best spectacle-corrected visual acuities, refractive error, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Complications were few and would not likely have been prevented had the surgery been performed monocularly. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous bilateral cataract surgery did not lead to an increased incidence of intraoperative or postoperative complications. The visual acuity results were good, and the patients were pleased. No complications were observed that could be attributed to the procedures being done bilaterally.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".