MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Disruption and reacquisition of binocular vision in childhood and in adulthood

2005· review· en· W1964646926 on OpenAlexaff
Sherry L. Fawcett

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Ophthalmology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOptometryBinocular visionAudiologyComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the most recent studies that address the loss of and restoration of binocular vision in childhood and adulthood and summarizes recent changes in treatment approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies during the last two years support the idea of continued plasticity of the binocular visual system throughout life. Children and adults with strabismus onset following binocular vision maturation are susceptibility to a permanent disruption of stereopsis and sensory fusion. Plasticity of the binocular visual system, however, also means continued restorability of function. Despite a rather short critical time interval for restoration of normal function (three months in children and 12 months in adults), peripheral or extramacular binocular visual function can be restored in most patients whose onset of disruption follows binocular maturation. SUMMARY: Stereoacuity loss can occur in the visually mature patient who develops strabismus later in life and delay of treatment can be deleterious to the restoration of normal macular binocular vision. However, despite any delay of treatment, most patients with strabismus acquired following binocular vision maturation will manifest some stereoacuity or sensory fusion following eye realignment. These findings suggest all patients with strabismus need to have their eyes aligned, either surgically or optically, to maximize their binocular vision outcome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in OphthalmologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207