Training regimen involving cyclic induction of pupil constriction during far accommodation improves visual acuity in myopic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Training regimen involving cyclic induction of pupil constriction during far accommodation improves visual acuity in myopic children Kenji Yuda1, Hiroshi Uozato2, Naoto Hara3, Wolfram Tetzlaff4, Satoru Hisahara5, Hiroko Horie6, Satomi Nakajima6, Hidenori Horie6,71Kikuna Yuda Eye Clinic, Yokohama, Japan; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Kitasato University, Kanagawa, Japan; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Yokohama Dental and Medical Clinic, Kanagawa Dental College, Yokohama, Japan; 4ICORD, International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 5Panasonic Shikoku Electronics Co., Ltd., Yokohama, Japan; 6TechnoMaster Co., Ltd., Yokohama, Japan; 7Research Center of Brain and Oral Science, Kanagawa Dental College, Yokosuka, JapanPurpose: Myopia in school-age children has become increasingly prevalent in industrialized countries, especially in Asia. A large population of school-age children still suffers from low visual acuity. We have developed a novel, safe and noninvasive training method to activate a pupillary constriction response during far accommodation that results in improved visual acuity.Methods: Myopic children (n = 95) were treated for 3-minute sessions up to twice a week for 12–106 weeks. We stimulated quick cycles of near/far accommodation by displaying a visual object on a LCD screen and moving the screen in cycles from a near (25 cm) to a far (70 cm) point and back, while keeping the retinal projection size and brightness of the object constant. Results: Mechanistically, we noted pupillary constriction upon far accommodation in trained myopic children, which was not seen in normal subjects or in untrained myopic children. Eighty five percent (52/61) of trained myopic right eyes with two sessions weekly experienced improved visual acuity (VA) by more than 0.1 logMAR units with an average improvement of 0.30 ± 0.03 standard error of mean (SEM) logMAR units. With maintained training, most eyes’ improved VA stayed almost constant, for more than 50 weeks in the case of 12 long trained subjects.Conclusions: This simple, short and safe accommodation training greatly improves the quality of vision in a large population suffering from refractive abnormalities.Keywords: accommodation, visual acuity, myopia, pupil constriction, training regimen
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".