Patient’s Perception Regarding Vision Related Quality of Life in Immediate Sequential and Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cataract is the main cause of visual impairment and treatable blindness in the world and surgery can restore normal sight to the patients. In bilateral cataract patient, surgery in the second eye is as important and meaningful as surgery in the first eye and it can be performed by immediate sequential (ISBCS) and delayed sequential bilateral cataract surgery (DSBCS). There is no statistically significant difference in surgical complications, visual acuity or long term self-perceived visual function between these two methods. To adopt surgical procedure, to improve the patient’s satisfaction and to improve the quality of services, patient opinion should be a great concern. This evaluative study was done to find out various recommendations and suggestions from patients regarding merits & demerits of both types of cataract surgery that will be helpful for the decision-maker and administrator for future practice of cataract surgery in Canada. In this study, vision related quality of life improved in both groups. Participants in DSBCS group experienced different types of difficulties during the gap period between first eye and second eye cataract surgery i.e. visual imbalance between the two eyes and difficulty in driving. They recommended and suggested that cataract surgery wait time should be reduced and the difficulties experienced during the gap period can be eliminated by adopting ISBCS procedure. Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Med. Coll. J. 2023;2(1): 07-13
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".