The Manifestation of Noncycloplegic Refractive State in Pre-School Children is Dependent on Autorefractor Design
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 investigate the factors that govern the manifestation of hyperopic refractive errors of pre-school children when tested with and without the application of cycloplegics. METHODS: Forty-three pre-school children (mean age, 3.68 +/- 0.59 years) were tested before and during cycloplegia in the following order: retinoscopy with optical fogging; Retinomax K plus; Welch Allyn SureSight (DAV SureSight), and PowerRefractor. In the case of the PowerRefractor, the children viewed a difference of Gaussian target (0.20 cpd) at 3.5 m in addition to viewing the instrument LED sources. RESULTS: Instruments with close working distances (Retinomax) showed the greatest underestimation of hyperopia and the largest variation, followed by the instruments having a greater working distance (PowerRefractor LED view and retinoscopy). The addition of a far target (PowerRefractor difference of Gaussian view) showed the least underestimation, whereas DAV SureSight showed a mean overestimation of the refractive state. CONCLUSION: When autorefractors are applied to vision screening of pre-school children without the use of cycloplegics, autorefractor designs must be developed that both stabilize and relax the child's accommodation. Our results suggest that designs should include large working distances and distant fixation targets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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