Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of patching plus telescopic magnification vs patching alone in treating refractory amblyopia. METHODS: Children aged 4 to 17 years who failed previous amblyopia treatment were recruited into this prospective study. Subjects were randomly assigned to either 30 minutes per day of patching of the fellow eye only (n = 7) or 30 minutes per day of patching of the fellow eye plus concurrent use of a telescope in the amblyopic eye (n = 8). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Best-corrected logMAR visual acuity score of the amblyopic eye after 17 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvement in visual acuity in the amblyopic eye after 17 weeks (P = .001). Improvements in the patching-only group were slightly greater over the course of treatment, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .06). At 17 weeks, mean visual acuity improvement from baseline was 0.14 logMAR (SD, 0.13 logMAR) in the patching-only group and 0.06 logMAR (SD, 0.17 logMAR) in the patching plus telescope group (P = .11). The 17-week visual acuity was at least 0.2 logMAR and/or improved from baseline by at least 0.2 logMAR in 2 patients in the patching-only group and none in the patching plus telescope group (P = .08). CONCLUSION: Treatment of refractory amblyopia in children using telescopic magnification did not appear to confer any additional benefits over patching alone. APPLICATION TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Occlusion and penalization remain the standard of care for patients with amblyopia and should remain the benchmark against which other treatments are compared in clinical trials for amblyopia therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00970554.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".