Comparative evaluation of the clinical and economic efficiency of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery and delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Рurpose. Comparative evaluation (from the standpoint of the Compulsory Medical Insurance Fund, CHI) of the clinical and economic efficiency of immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) and delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). Material and methods. The assessment was based on the calculation of direct medical and indirect costs of the operation. The cost of preoperative preparation in accordance with the rules of hospitalization in the surgical department was calculated on the basis of compulsory medical insurance rates for 2022. Results. The total costs (from the perspective of the compulsory health insurance fund) during the implementation of the DSBCS are 44.2 % higher than in the case of the ISBCS, which is generally consistent with the alternative calculations made in other countries (Finland, USA, Canada). Conclusion. The leading factor in the introduction of ISBCS into wide clinical practice is the development of a technology that provides comparable (with DSBCS) clinical results in terms of the level of intra and postoperative complications (especially endophthalmitis), the achieved values of BCVA, refraction of the “goal” and “quality of life” of the patient. In this case, ISBCS is characterized (compared with DSBCS) by a number of significant advantages associated with faster recovery of binocular vision, the possibility of surgical treatment of cataracts in a difficult epidemiological environment (reducing the use of personal protective equipment, minimizing repeated visits), more efficient workload in the operating room and less treatment costs from the standpoint of the state and the patient. Keywords: cataract phacoemulsification, medical expenses for treatment, compulsory medical insurance fund.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".