Myopia Progression Rates in Urban Children Wearing Single‐Vision Spectacles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct a meta-analysis on the rates of myopia progression in urban children of Asian and predominately European ethnicities who are corrected with traditional single-vision spectacles. METHODS: A search of the National Library of Medicine's PubMed literature database for articles on myopia progression was conducted using the terms "myopi*progression" and MeSH terms "myopia" and "disease progression," and limited to publications from January 1990 and only for articles reporting data for humans <16 years of age. Studies were excluded if they were non-randomized, did not use cycloplegic autorefraction, had a sample size <30 individuals, examined high myopia (worse than -6.0 D) or special subject groups, presented myopia as part of a syndrome or condition, were retrospective, or used controls wearing optical corrections other than spectacles. RESULTS: Of 175 articles identified, 20 remained after applying the exclusion criteria. The estimated myopia progression at a mean age of 9.3 years after 1 year of follow-up was -0.55 D [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.39 to -0.72 D] for populations of predominantly European extraction and -0.82 D (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.93 D) for Asians. The estimated progression rates were dependent on baseline age, with decreasing progression as age increased. The rates also varied with gender. For an average baseline age of 8.8 years, estimated annual progression (combined ethnicities) was -0.80 D/yr for females (95% CI, -0.51 to -1.10), and a significantly slower (p < 0.01) -0.71 D/yr for males (95% CI, -0.42 to -1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In children wearing single-vision spectacles, higher myopia progression rates were found in urban Asians compared with urban populations of predominantly European descent. Younger children and females demonstrated greater annual rates of progression of myopia.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".