Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to report the geometric range of angle kappa formation in patients with and without strabismus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study of three patients with angle kappa in different planes. Routine eye examinations, including visual acuity, slit-lamp examination, and ophthalmoscopy, were performed. A thorough orthoptic examination revealed a notable difference between the prism and alternate-cover test and the Hirschberg measurements. RESULTS: The first patient exhibited a bilateral vertical angle kappa into opposite directions due to retinochoroidal scars. Two other patients presented with horizontal angle kappa deviations. In one patient a true accommodative esotropia was exaggerated by a right negative angle kappa. The other patient had a pseudoexotropia due to bilateral positive angle kappa. Macular ectopia was noted in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: The patients herein reported demonstrate a marked variability of angle kappa occurrence in the horizontal and vertical plane. The angle kappa can exaggerate or conceal the size of the true heterotropia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".