Binocular Vision and Eye Movement Disorders in Older Adults
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: To determine the prevalence of binocular vision (BV) and eye movement disorders in a clinic population of older adults. METHODS: Retrospective clinic data were abstracted from files of 500 older patients seen at the University of Waterloo Optometry Clinic over a 1-year period. Stratified sampling gave equal numbers of patients in the 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80+ age groups. Data included age, general and ocular history and symptoms, use of antidepressants, a habit of smoking, refraction, visual acuity, BV and eye movement status for the most recent full oculo-visual assessment, and an assessment 10 years prior. The prevalence of any BV or eye movement abnormal test (AT) result, defined as a test result outside the normal range, was determined. This included strabismus (any) or phoria; incomitancy; poor pursuits; and remote near point of convergence (NPC). The prevalence of significant BV disorders (diagnostic entities, i.e., a clinical condition that may need treatment and may have functional implications) was also determined. RESULTS: The prevalence of any BV or eye movement at was 41%, 44%, and 51% in the 60 to 69, 70 to 79, and 80+ age groups, respectively. These figures were lower for 10 years earlier: 31%, 36%, and 40% for ages 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70+, respectively. The prevalence of any BV or eye movement disorder was 27%, 30%, and 38% for the three age groups and 17%, 19%, and 24% for 10 years prior. Age and use of antidepressants most commonly predicted BV or eye movement AT or disorder. CONCLUSIONS: BV disorders are common among older adults.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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