Changes in Vector Astigmatism After Superotemporal Versus Temporal Clear Corneal Incision Cataract Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate vector and refractive astigmatism changes after superotemporal versus temporal clear corneal incision cataract surgery. METHODS: Patients were diagnosed with age-related cataract with corneal astigmatism < 1.5 diopters (D) and were divided into two groups: superotemporal incision (R group) and temporal incision (L group). Uncorrected visual acuity, manifest refraction, corneal topography, anterior segment optical coherence tomography was performed pre- and six months postoperatively. Total ocular astigmatism, corneal astigmatism, vector of surgically induced corneal astigmatism (SICA), non-corneal ocular residual astigmatism (N-CORA), postoperative intraocular lens decentration and tilt were analyzed. Results: Thirty-eight subjects were included: 21, R group; 17, L group. After surgery, the N-CORA decreased significantly from 1.17±0.72 D to 0.73±0.47 D in all patients (P=0.001), 1.03±0.52 D to 0.70±0.40 D in the R group (P=0.005) and 1.35±0.90 D to 0.78±0.55 D in the L group (P=0.033). Significant differences between t:he R and L groups were found in the postoperative meridian of anterior corneal astigmatism (75.95±52.50 vs 116.79±47.29; P=0.017), total corneal astigmatism (51.65±42.75 vs 95.20±57.32; P=0.011), J45 change vector of SICA in the anterior cornea (-0.10±0.18 vs 0.00±0.11; P=0.048) and total cornea surface (-0.14±0.17 vs 0.03±0.12; P=0.001). Conclusion: The N-CORA decreased significantly after cataract surgery. Superotemporal and temporal incisions caused differences in the meridian components of oblique astigmatism in some patients but did not have a significant effect on the magnitude of corneal astigmatism.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".