Bifocals in Down Syndrome Study (BiDS): Design and Baseline Visual Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Among children and young people with Down syndrome (DS) there is a high prevalence of reduced accommodation. Prescribing bifocals for these patients has not become fully clinically accepted, although it would be anticipated to improve visual acuity (VA). The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of bifocal correction on VA, visual perceptual skills and early literacy development in children with DS who have reduced accommodation and who are provided with a bifocal correction. This paper describes the study design and the baseline optometric findings. METHODS: We have chosen a longitudinal design with frequent measures of subtests of performance to control for progression with time. The main outcome measures are early literacy and visual perception skills. Secondary outcomes are VA and accommodative function. These are measured at baseline, the participant followed for 6 months when bifocals are prescribed if necessary, and the participants were followed for another 6 months with bifocals. RESULTS: Fourteen participants with DS aged 8 to 19 years were enrolled. At baseline 79% required a change in their distance spectacle prescription. One hundred percent had reduced accommodation both before and after new single vision glasses were prescribed. None had an adverse reaction to 0.5 or 1% Cyclopentolate. All the subjects were able to perform either a distance or near crowded Patti-pics symbols test and 93% were able to perform both. There was a significant improvement of near VA with the new single vision spectacles (p = 0.015). The mean binocular distance VA was 0.362 +/- 0.17 logMAR whereas binocular near VA was 0.489 +/- 0.235. CONCLUSION: This study confirms previous findings of a high prevalence of reduced accommodation and shows that near VA is reduced compared to distance VA. The present results indicate that all subjects might benefit from bifocals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".