The use of prisms for vision rehabilitation after macular function loss: an evidence‐based review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the efficacy of prisms used for redirection of incoming images towards the peripheral retina in cases with macular function loss. Meta-analysis of published work reporting outcomes from interventions using prisms was performed. The primary outcome measure selected for analysis was visual acuity (VA) used for viewing distance targets. Pooled data from 449 cases where prisms were prescribed for wearing in distance glasses were analysed. Visual acuity was better after using prisms (1.05 versus 0.89 logMAR units, p < 0.044). Mean effect size for improving VA was 79 bigger than the effect size calculated for the control group (0.158 versus 0.002). Most patients (76%) reported compliance with the therapy and also reported other benefits directly derived from the realized VA improvement. Published studies collectively offer positive evidence in support of using prisms for low vision rehabilitation after macular function loss. Further research is required to reach definitive binding conclusions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".