Efficacy and safety evaluation of a new full visual range vs monofocal intraocular lens in patients with cataract: randomized, controlled Canadian clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the visual performance and patient-reported outcomes after bilateral implantation of a new full visual range (FVR) intraocular lens (IOL) or its monofocal version. SETTING: 9 sites in Canada. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-mask, controlled study. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent bilateral implantation of either a FVR enVista Envy or monofocal MX60E IOL. Postoperative assessments included visual acuities, defocus curves, contrast sensitivity, and patient-reported outcomes using quality of vision and near activity visual questionnaire. RESULTS: The FVR IOL was noninferior to the control monofocal IOL for monocular uncorrected distance visual acuity and statistically superior to the monofocal IOL for monocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity and uncorrected near visual acuity. Binocular defocus curves showed a range of vision of ∼4.0 diopters (D) at 0.2 logMAR or better in the FVR group. In the intermediate and near range (-1.5 to -2.5 D), the FVR group demonstrated a plateau at ∼0.1 logMAR (20/25), whereas in the monofocal group, visual acuity decreased to 0.27 logMAR (20/37) at -1.50 D defocus and to 0.48 logMAR (20/60) at -2.50 D defocus. Postoperatively, 92.7% (102/110) of the FVR patients were satisfied with their near vision, and 91.7% (99/108) of them did not require spectacles to do near-vision tasks, even for a prolonged duration. CONCLUSIONS: The FVR group exhibited a continuous range of vision from distance to near. Postoperatively, more than 90% of FVR patients were satisfied with their near vision and had no difficulty doing near-vision tasks while being spectacle-free.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".