Comparing the rate of cataract surgery complications between a hospital and an independent health facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative complication rates of cataract surgeries performed at a hospital and an independent health facility (IHF) in Ontario following governmental funding changes affecting for-profit private clinics. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. PARTICIPANTS: All patients receiving publicly funded elective cataract surgery in Kingston, Ontario, between January 1, 2023, and December 31, 2023. METHODS: tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: A total of 3190 (hospital: 1741; IHF: 1449) charts were reviewed. The hospital had a significantly higher rate of PCRs (1.44% vs 0.21%; p < 0.01). Retinal tears/detachments occurred in 5 hospital cases (0.29%) and none at the IHF, while 2 endophthalmitis cases were reported at the IHF (0.14%) and none at the hospital (both p > 0.05). Lens use patterns significantly differed, with more premium and aspheric lenses used at the IHF and more spheric lenses at the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates at both sites were similar and within expected ranges. Differences in PCR rates may be explained by a tendency to perform more complicated surgeries at the hospital. The findings suggest that cataract surgery at both clinical settings is safe.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".