APAO survey of cataract surgeons’ attitudes toward operating room waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine Asia Pacific cataract surgeons' attitudes toward surgical waste and toward reusing supplies and pharmaceuticals. DESIGN: Multinational survey of APAO members METHODS: An online survey link was distributed to APAO members through their national ophthalmology societies. Responses were deidentified and compared with those from identical survey questionnaires previously distributed to North American and European cataract surgeons. RESULTS: Of 2095 total respondents, most were concerned about climate change (94 %), felt cataract surgical waste was excessive (96 %), and felt we should reduce unnecessary waste by safely reusing more surgical supplies and devices (80 %). Most identified manufacturers and regulatory agencies as the biggest drivers of single use products, rather than surgeons and patients. Most surgeons wanted more reusable instruments and supplies (92 %) and wanted greater discretion from manufacturers (92 %) andpolicymakers (90 %) to reuse many supplies, drugs, and devices; 89 % wanted their medical societies to advocate for reducing the waste and carbon footprint of cataract surgery. Far more APAO respondents (59 %) were currently reusing single-use instruments compared to North Americans (7 %) and Europeans (14 %). Many APAO respondents were currently reusing phacoemulsification tubing/cassettes (41 %), irrigation solution bottles (50 %), and intraocular drug solutions (41-55 %); 42 % were currently not changing surgical gowns between cases. These percentages were all higher compared to North American and European respondents. CONCLUSIONS: These universal and consensus opinions and preferences about willingness to reuse many cataract surgical products should inform and influence pharmaceutical and supply manufacturers, governmental policy makers, and health care institutions, such as hospitals and surgical facilities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".