Clinical Evaluation of a Modified Light Transmission Short-Wavelength Filtering Intraocular Lens Compared to a Colorless Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a violet-light filtering intraocular lens (IOL) compared to a colorless IOL control. METHODS: This was a prospective, bilateral, randomized, comparative, patient/evaluator-masked multi-center clinical trial at 12 sites in the USA. Patients underwent standard small-incision phacoemulsification cataract extraction. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color vision were tested 12 months postoperatively. Patient satisfaction and vision-related quality of life were evaluated based on directed patient responses obtained from a binocular subjective questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 250 subjects were bilaterally implanted with the violet-light filtering TECNIS monofocal ZV9003 (n = 126) and colorless TECNIS monofocal ZA9003 (n = 124). Mean uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) was 0.123 LogMAR for ZV9003 and 0.116 LogMAR for the ZA9003 group. Mean corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 0.00 LogMAR for both groups. No significant difference was found between the groups for 22/25 questionnaire categories, including color perception. A significant difference was found in favor of the ZV9003 group for day driving, night driving, and frustration with vision. Contrast sensitivity mean difference was < 0.05 log units across all lighting conditions and spatial frequencies. CONCLUSION: No difference was found between groups for visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color testing, and adverse events as well as with the majority of optical/visual symptoms. A statistical difference was noted in driving and frustration with eyesight that may be related to benefits of using a violet-light filtering chromophore. Overall, the violet-light filtering ZV9003 showed excellent visual acuity and contrast sensitivity results with a low incidence of optical/visual symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".