Refractive surgery as a treatment tool for strabismus: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact refractive surgery has on preoperative horizontal strabismus is rapidly evolving, and this knowledge can provide valuable clinical context when considering refractive surgery as a treatment for strabismus. 515 studies were identified, of which 26 met the inclusion criteria. Analysis indicated that refractive surgery resulted in an overall decrease in the mean uncorrected postoperative angle of deviation caused partially or fully due to refractive error and highlighted the varied outcome of refractive surgery on nonaccommodative horizontal strabismus with limited evidence to suggest refractive surgery for this type of strabismus. Efficacy of refractive surgery in reducing concomitant horizontal strabismus depends on several factors: type of horizontal ocular deviation, patient age, and extent of refractive error. Refractive surgery can be an effective treatment for refractive accommodative horizontal strabismus in patients with stable, mild to moderate myopia or hyperopia and should be considered with careful patient selection for optimum outcome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".