Normal emmetropization in infants with spectacle correction for hyperopia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development of emmetropic refraction is known to be under visual control. Does partial spectacle correction of infants' refractive errors, which has been shown to have beneficial effects in reducing strabismus and amblyopia, impede emmetropization? The purpose of the present study was to perform the first longitudinal controlled trial to investigate this question in human subjects. METHODS: Children identified as having significant hyperopia in a population screening program at age 8 to 9 months were assigned to treated (partial spectacle correction) or untreated groups. A control group of infants with no significant refractive errors at screening was also recruited. Measurements of retinoscopic refraction under cycloplegia were taken at 4- to 6-month intervals up to the age of 36 months, and changes in refraction of 148 subjects were analyzed longitudinally. RESULTS: Refractive error decreased toward low hyperopic values between 9 and 36 months in both hyperopic groups. By 36 months, this reduction of hyperopia showed no overall difference between children who were treated with partial spectacle correction and those who were not. Despite the improvement, both hyperopic groups' mean refractive error at 36 months remained higher than that of the control group. When infants in all three groups were considered together, the rate of reduction of refractive error was, on average, a linear function of the initial level of hyperopia. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of spectacle correction for infants with hyperopia can be achieved without impairing the normal developmental regulation of refraction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".