Survey of Contact Lens Prescribing to Infants, Children, and Teenagers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the types of contact lenses prescribed for infants (aged 0 to 5 years), children (6 to 12 years), and teenagers (13 to 17 years) around the world. METHODS: Up to 1000 survey forms were sent to contact lens fitters in each of 38 countries between January and March every year for 5 consecutive years (2005 to 2009). Practitioners were asked to record data relating to the first 10 contact lens fits or refits performed after receiving the survey form. RESULTS: Data were received relating to 105,734 fits [137 infants, 1,672 children, 12,117 teenagers, and 91,808 adults (age ≥ 18 years)]. The proportion of minors (<18 year old) fitted varied considerably between nations, ranging from 25% in Iceland to 1% in China. Compared with other age groups, infants tend to be prescribed a higher proportion of rigid, soft toric, and extended wear lenses, predominantly as refits for full-time wear, and fewer daily disposable lenses. Children are fitted with the highest proportion of daily disposable lenses and have the highest rate of fits for part-time wear. Teenagers have a similar lens fitting profile to adults, with the main distinguishing characteristic being a higher proportion of new fits. Orthokeratology fits represented 28% of all contact lenses prescribed to minors. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of contact lens prescribing to infants and children are distinctly different to those of teenagers and adults in a number of respects. Clinicians can use the data presented here to compare their own patterns of contact lens prescribing to minors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".