MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372202772 · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2023.05.005

A Simplified Method to Minimize Systematic Bias of Single-Optimized Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas

2023· article· en· W4372202772 on OpenAlexaff
Damien Gatinel, Guillaume Debellemanière, Alain Saad, Radhika Rampat, Avi Wallerstein, Mathieu Gauvin, Jacques Malet

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraocular lensKeratometerRefractionLens (geology)MathematicsExponential functionPosition (finance)CataractsIntraocular lens power calculationConstant (computer programming)Power (physics)OpticsOphthalmologyMedicineCorneaComputer scienceMathematical analysisPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSETo provide a simplified method to optimize lens constants to zero the mean prediction error (ME) of an intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula, without the need to program the formula itself, by exploring the influence of IOL and corneal power on the refractive impact of variations in effective lens position.DESIGNTheoretical development of an optimized formula and retrospective clinical evaluation on documented datasets.METHODSRetrospective data from 8878 patients with cataracts with pre- and postoperative measurements available using 4 IOL models and 6 IOL power calculation formulas were examined. A schematic eye model was used to study the impact of small variations in effective lens position (ELP) on the postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refraction. The impact of keratometry (K) and IOL power (P) on SE was investigated. A theoretical thick lens model was used to devise a formula to zero the average prediction error of an IOL power calculation formula. This was achieved by incrementing the predicted ELP, which could then be translated into an increment in the IOL constant. This method was tested on documented real-life postoperative datasets, using different IOL models and single-constant optimized IOL calculation formulas.RESULTSFor small variations in ELP, there was an exponential relationship between IOL power and the resultant postoperative refractive variation. The ELP adjustment necessary to zero the ME equated to a ratio between the ME and the mean of the following expression: 0.0006*(P2+2K*P) on the considered datasets. The accuracy of the values obtained using this formula was confirmed on documented postoperative datasets, and on published and nonpublished formulas.CONCLUSIONThe proposed method allows surgeons without special expertise to optimize an IOL constant to nullify the ME on a documented dataset without coding the different formulas. The influence of individual eyes is proportional to the squared power of the implanted IOL. To provide a simplified method to optimize lens constants to zero the mean prediction error (ME) of an intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula, without the need to program the formula itself, by exploring the influence of IOL and corneal power on the refractive impact of variations in effective lens position. Theoretical development of an optimized formula and retrospective clinical evaluation on documented datasets. Retrospective data from 8878 patients with cataracts with pre- and postoperative measurements available using 4 IOL models and 6 IOL power calculation formulas were examined. A schematic eye model was used to study the impact of small variations in effective lens position (ELP) on the postoperative spherical equivalent (SE) refraction. The impact of keratometry (K) and IOL power (P) on SE was investigated. A theoretical thick lens model was used to devise a formula to zero the average prediction error of an IOL power calculation formula. This was achieved by incrementing the predicted ELP, which could then be translated into an increment in the IOL constant. This method was tested on documented real-life postoperative datasets, using different IOL models and single-constant optimized IOL calculation formulas. For small variations in ELP, there was an exponential relationship between IOL power and the resultant postoperative refractive variation. The ELP adjustment necessary to zero the ME equated to a ratio between the ME and the mean of the following expression: 0.0006*(P2+2K*P) on the considered datasets. The accuracy of the values obtained using this formula was confirmed on documented postoperative datasets, and on published and nonpublished formulas. The proposed method allows surgeons without special expertise to optimize an IOL constant to nullify the ME on a documented dataset without coding the different formulas. The influence of individual eyes is proportional to the squared power of the implanted IOL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OphthalmologySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207