Improvements in Clinical and Functional Vision and Quality of Life after Second Eye Cataract Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Purpose To determine whether there is a need for second eye cataract surgery or whether cataract surgery in one eye provides sufficiently adequate vision. Methods The vision of 43 patients was assessed using a battery of clinical vision tests, performance‐based functional vision tests, and quality of life questionnaires, both before and a few months after cataract surgery. Twenty‐five patients underwent second eye surgery and 18 patients underwent first‐eye surgery. To determine whether cataract surgery returned vision to normal levels, a control group of 25 subjects of a similar age with normal, healthy eyes was also assessed. Results Overall, greater improvements occurred in most aspects of vision after first eye surgery than after second eye surgery. However, second eye surgery provided similar improvements in mobility orientation and self‐reported night driving to those after first eye surgery, and substantially greater improvements in stereoacuity and reductions in anisometropia. Conclusions The study provides additional evidence to support the need for second eye cataract surgery. Second eye surgery may be particularly important to improve mobility orientation and the avoidance of falls.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".