MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7072172143

Visual Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction of Two Continuous Range of Vision Intraocular Lenses

2025· article· en· W7072172143 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinocular visionPatient satisfactionGLAREIntraocular lensesAstigmatismMultifocal intraocular lensVisual acuityVision disorderStereopsis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J Morgan Micheletti,1 Brad Hall,2 Hayden G Smiley,3 William J Langston4 1Berkeley Eye Center, Houston, TX, USA; 2Sengi, Penniac, NB, Canada; 3Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, TX, USA; 4Long School of Medicine, San Antonio, TX, USACorrespondence: J Morgan Micheletti, Berkeley Eye Center, Houston, TX, USA, Tel +1-713-526-1600, Email morgan.micheletti@gmail.comPurpose: To determine if visual outcomes with PanOptix are non-inferior to visual outcomes with Synergy.Methods: This was an ambispective, single center, comparative, bilateral, observational study. Patients received bilateral implantation with either PanOptix or Synergy intraocular lenses (IOLs) and were enrolled at least 5 months after surgeries. Patients with postoperative spherical equivalent ± 0.50D and astigmatism ≤ 0.75D in both eyes were enrolled. Postoperatively, patients were tested for binocular uncorrected and distance corrected visual acuities at distance, intermediate (60cm), and near (40cm and 33cm), binocular defocus curve, and were administered questionnaires about quality of vision (QUVID) and spectacle independence (IOLSAT).Results: A total of 230 subjects completed the study, 153 in the PanOptix group and 77 in the Synergy group. Non-inferiority of visual acuities were confirmed for all testing distances, with and without distance correction in place. No significant differences were observed for the binocular defocus curves (p > 0.05). Severity of starburst, halo, and glare were rated as “None” in 65% (98/150), 38% (58/152), and 48% (72/151) of subjects with the PanOptix Group, compared to 49% (37/76), 38% (29/77), and 55% (42/77) for the Synergy Group, respectively. The percentage of patients “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” with their vision was 89% (136/153) in the PanOptix group and 94% (72/77) in the Synergy group.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest excellent visual acuities at distance, intermediate, and near, high spectacle independence, and high patient satisfaction with both the PanOptix and Synergy IOLs. The incidence of starbursts and blurred vision, as well as visual acuities at extreme near (33 cm), may be higher with the Synergy IOL.Keywords: panoptix, synergy, cataract surgery, continuous range of vision

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.577
Teacher spread0.450 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies→French-language works237,207→