Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intermittent exotropia (IXT) can be a controversial topic, often eliciting lively discussion. This lecture will discuss its definition, incidence, age of onset, presentation, natural variation, criteria for deterioration, goals of treatment, effectiveness of surgical treatment, types of surgical treatment, and unwanted effects of surgical treatment. METHOD: Results from the scientific literature, opinions of respected colleagues, the opinion of the author, and the results of live polling of the audience during the John Pratt-Johnson lecture are presented. RESULTS: IXT is defined as an exotropia that is present intermittently predominantly for distance. Its incidence is about 1% and it usually has an onset before age 5. Patients often present because of concern regarding the appearance of the eye misalignment. There is natural variation in the control of IXT, the angle of IXT, and the amount of stereopsis. Criteria that denote deterioration are increasing frequency of IXT, progressively and consistently increasing angle of IXT, loss of binocular vision, and increasing concern regarding the patient's appearance and its effect on social interaction. Goals of treatment are to retain equal or nearly equal vision, to obtain acceptable cosmesis, and to retain binocular vision. The long-term success of surgical treatment is not well proven. Persistent postoperative overcorrection is an unwanted effect of surgical treatment. CONCLUSION: The inherent biologic variation that occurs when measuring the components of IXT makes it difficult to be dogmatic about IXT, particularly when trying to decide when deterioration is occurring.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".