MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415467678 · doi:10.2147/opth.s545977

Visual Performance and Refractive Stability of Clareon® Monofocal Intraocular Lens Implanted with an Automated Delivery System

2025· article· en· W4415467678 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Tran, Nirmit Shah, Angela Kyveris, Graham Berg, Toby Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelivery systemIntraocular lensIntraocular lensesCataract surgeryLens (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: automated delivery system in a real-world North American setting. Patients and Methods: IOL implantation. Eligible participants were ≥22 years old with best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) of 0.3 logMAR or worse, targeted for emmetropia, and had <1.0 D of preoperative astigmatism. Exclusion criteria included retinal disease, glaucoma, amblyopia, corneal pathology, and prior intraocular or corneal surgery. Manifest refraction, uncorrected (UDVA), best-corrected (BCDVA), and low-contrast visual acuity (LCVA) were assessed at 1, 3, and 12 months postoperatively. Glistenings were graded using the Miyata scale at 3 and 12 months. Results: No statistically significant changes were observed in manifest refraction, UDVA, or BCDVA between 1 and 3 months (p > 0.05). At 3 months, the mean spherical equivalent was +0.09 D, with low residual astigmatism (-0.33 D). Mean logMAR UDVA and BCDVA were 0.13 and 0.02, respectively. LCVA was 0.04 logMAR. No glistenings were observed at either 3 or 12 months in any patient. Refractive and visual outcomes remained stable over time, with no device-related complications reported. Conclusion: delivery system supports its utility as a reliable option for cataract surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207