Perception of visual outcomes in patients after delayed compared with immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-reported visual outcomes of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) compared with delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). SETTING: Tertiary university teaching hospital of Laval University, Quebec City, Canada. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: The Catquest-9SF questionnaire was administered on the day of surgery for ISBCS patients and on the day of first-eye surgery for DSBCS patients who underwent cataract surgery between August and September 2021. The questionnaire was administered again 1 month postoperatively for ISBCS patients and 1 month postoperatively after each surgery for DSBCS patients. RESULTS: 186 patients (ISBCS: n = 152 vs DSBCS: n = 34) were included. At 1 month postoperatively, the Catquest-9SF score of ISBCS patients was significantly lower than that of DSBCS patients after first-eye surgery ( P < .001). Furthermore, the ISBCS group achieved significantly better scores on multiple tasks of the Catquest-9SF, such as reading text in the newspaper ( P < .001) or reading text on television ( P < .001). In multiple linear regression analysis, the type of surgery was the factor most associated with a lower Catquest-9SF score (β = -0.391, P < .001). 1 month after the second-eye surgery, DSBCS patients had achieved similar Catquest-9SF scores compared with ISBCS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DSBCS patients, ISBCS patients had significantly greater perceived visual function and fewer vision-related limitations in their daily activities at 1 month postoperatively. This difference lost significance 1 month after the second-eye surgery of DSBCS patients. This patient-reported outcome study did not find evidence of perceived bilateral visual impairment in the early postoperative period after ISBCS.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".