A new binocular approach to the treatment of Amblyopia in adults well beyond the critical period of visual development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present treatments for amblyopia are predominantly monocular aiming to improve the vision in the amblyopic eye through either patching of the fellow fixing eye or visual training of the amblyopic eye. This approach is problematic, not least of which because it rarely results in establishment of binocular function. Recently it has shown that amblyopes possess binocular cortical mechanisms for both threshold and suprathreshold stimuli. METHODS: We outline a novel procedure for measuring the extent to which the fixing eye suppresses the fellow amblyopic eye, rendering what is a structurally binocular system, functionally monocular. RESULTS: Here we show that prolonged periods of viewing (under the artificial conditions of stimuli of different contrast in each eye) during which information from the two eyes is combined leads to a strengthening of binocular vision in strabismic amblyopes and eventual combination of binocular information under natural viewing conditions (stimuli of the same contrast in each eye). Concomitant improvement in monocular acuity of the amblyopic eye occurs with this reduction in suppression and strengthening of binocular fusion. Furthermore, in a majority of patients tested, stereoscopic function is established. CONCLUSIONS: This provides the basis for a new treatment of amblyopia, one that is purely binocular and aimed at reducing suppression as a first step.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it