Comparison of IOP measurements pre-and post-photorefractive keratectomy using pascal dynamic contour and Goldmann applanation tonometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) preoperatively and 6 months post-photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) using Pascal Dynamic Contour Tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT).Setting: University of Ottawa Eye Institute (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). Methods: Myopic patients undergoing PRK had IOP measured with DCT and GAT, as well as central corneal thickness (CCT) measurements at baseline and at 6 months post-surgery. A control group of age matched volunteers not undergoing surgery had similar measurements 6 months apart.Results: 10 patients undergoing PRK and 10 control patients were followed. IOP was not significantly changed in the PRK group pre-and postoperatively with DCT (p=0.4497) but decreased postoperatively with GAT (p=0.0042). CCT was decreased in patients undergoing PRK (p=0.0001).Conclusions: In patients who have undergone PRK, DCT measurements at 6 months postoperative are similar to preoperative indicating that this is a reliable method for tracking IOP in this group of patients. GAT significantly underestimated IOP postoperatively and therefore is not ideally suited for tracking changes in pressures post-PRK.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".