Comparative numerical analysis of astigmatism tolerance in bifocal, extended depth-of-focus, and trifocal intraocular lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we quantitatively assess the effect of astigmatism on visual functions in eyes with three different commercial multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) using a customized finite eye model. Our proposed model implements a full wave analysis of the whole eye structure with diffractive multifocal IOLs under polychromatic conditions. The proposed eye model evaluates the energy efficiency of each focus at varying degrees of corneal astigmatism with the light-in-the-bucket metrics for bifocal (Restor), extended depth-of-focus (Symfony), and trifocal IOLs (POD-F). Better tolerance under astigmatic conditions was observed in the order of Symfony, Restor, and POD-F, highlighting the need to consider multifocal toric IOLs with corneal astigmatism greater than +1.5 D, + 1.0 D, and +1.0 D for Symfony, Restor, and POD-F, respectively. Furthermore, we revealed the way that the optical properties of multifocal IOLs, including the optical power of the diffractive part, the effect of high-order harmonics, and chromatic aberration, interplay to determine the tolerance for corneal aberration. The numerical analysis closely agrees with previous clinical studies on determining the indication for multifocal toric IOLs, suggesting the clinical usability of the presented method in predicting the postoperative visual function of patients on a customized basis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".