The Montreal Experience: A Retrospective Study Part I—Basic Principles and Treatment Algorithm
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Authors have refined myopia control strategies (MCS) from their experience treating more than 800 children who were followed at the Montreal School of Optometry Clinic (CUV). They developed a treatment algorithm known as the Montreal Experience (ME). Contrary to many other MCS, treatment modalities are selected after careful evaluation of a patient’s parameters (rate of progression, age of myopia onset, corneal parameters, pupil area), the risk factors for ocular pathology (growth charts), and taking into account the patient’s lifestyle and potential compliance. This represents a customized approach for each patient. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of MCS used following ME algorithm; the primary outcome relates to axial length progression over 24 months. METHODS: This is a retrospective study, conducted after approval of University IRB. Data were extracted from the file of each patient who: (1) consulted CUV between January 2017 and December 2018 and (2) were kept under the same MCS (same design/concentration). Clinical population is composed of 298 patients (35% Caucasian; 45% Asian; 20% others), with a median age of 11 (range 5–18). The treatment options were orthokeratology (OK-4 designs; N = 140), multifocal soft contact lenses (SMCL; 5 designs; N = 128), and low-dose atropine (LDA 0.01% to 0.25%; N = 42). RESULTS: Results are analyzed through sophisticated statistical models, designed for this purpose. At the end of a stepwise selection process that sequentially removed model terms that were not statistically significant, nine model terms remained: month, modality, the interaction of month and modality, refraction (SEQ), the interaction of SEQ and modality, gender, age, the interaction of age and month, and the interaction of age and modality. A total of 298 files were kept for analysis. Participant age varied from 9.7 to 12.5 years old. Baseline AL varied from 24.9 to 25.3 mm and SE refraction was −3.7 + 1.7 D on average. This study population was divided between Caucasian (34%), Asian (44%), and other ethnic origins (22%). Overall results indicate that results vary according to modality and months only. There is no statistical difference based on age, gender, and SEQ. All methods used were effective to slow the natural AL growth. Evolution was the lowest when using smaller treatment zones OK lenses (0.249 mm) and the highest (0.376 mm) for those treated with LDA. This OK advantage was statistically significant versus other modalities at 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSION: The Montreal Experience reveals that personalized MCS may be effective to manage myopia efficiently. It shows AL evolution comparable to the documented natural evolution of emmetropes, especially when using customized or smaller treatment zone OK lens design. Future work on other populations will confirm this tendency.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».