Intraocular Pressure Before and After Corneal Refractive Surgery: A Prospective Comparison of Corvis ST and Ocular Response Analyzer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRÉCIS: The study showed that Corvis ST's biomechanical intraocular pressure (bIOP) and ocular response analyzer's (ORA) cornea-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) do not agree well, before or after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and may not be used interchangeably. bIOP remained unchanged after PRK. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the agreement between the biomechanically corrected intraocular pressure (bIOP) measured by the Corvis ST and the IOPcc measured by the ORA before and after PRK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective interventional study, a total of 53 patients (53 eyes) were included. Measurements were acquired using both the Corvis ST and ORA devices before and 3 months post-PRK. The agreement between the 2 devices was evaluated using limits of agreement (LoA) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 29.6 ± 5.21 years (range: 21 to 40), with 41 (77.4%) of them being females. After the surgery, the average change in intraocular pressure (IOP) was 0.3 ± 1.7 mm Hg for bIOP and -1.6 ± 4.0 mm Hg for IOPcc. The corresponding 95% LoA were -3.5 to 4.2 mm Hg and -9.5 to 6.3 mm Hg, respectively. The 95% LoA between bIOP and IOPcc after PRK was -2.3 to 8.5 mm Hg. Notably, the bIOP values were higher for IOPs <20 mm Hg and lower for IOPs >20 mm Hg compared with IOPcc. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate a weak agreement between the Corvis ST-bIOP and the ORA-IOPcc both before and after PRK. These devices may not be used interchangeably for IOP measurement. bIOP exhibited less variation compared with the IOPcc, suggesting that the bIOP may be a better option for IOP reading after PRK.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".