Eye Examination Testability in Children with Autism and in Typical Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare testability of vision and eye tests in an examination protocol of 9- to 17-year-old patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to typically developing (TD) peers. METHODS: In a prospective pilot study, 61 children and adolescents (34 with ASD and 27 who were TD) aged 9 to 17 years completed an eye examination protocol including tests of visual acuity, refraction, convergence (eye teaming), stereoacuity (depth perception), ocular motility, and ocular health. Patients who required new refractive correction were retested after wearing their updated spectacle prescription for 1 month. The specialized protocol incorporated visual, sensory, and communication supports. A psychologist determined group status/eligibility using DSM-IV-TR (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision) criteria by review of previous evaluations and parent responses on the Social Communication Questionnaire. Before the examination, parents provided information regarding patients' sex, race, ethnicity, and, for ASD patients, verbal communication level (nonverbal, uses short words, verbal). Parents indicated whether the patient wore a refractive correction, whether the patient had ever had an eye examination, and the age at the last examination. Chi-square tests compared testability results for TD and ASD groups. RESULTS: Typically developing and ASD groups did not differ by age (p = 0.54), sex (p = 0.53), or ethnicity (p = 0.22). Testability was high on most tests (TD, 100%; ASD, 88 to 100%), except for intraocular pressure (IOP), which was reduced for both the ASD (71%) and the TD (89%) patients. Among ASD patients, IOP testability varied greatly with verbal communication level (p < 0.001). Although IOP measurements were completed on all verbal patients, only 37.5% of nonverbal and 44.4% of ASD patients who used short words were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ASD can complete most vision and eye tests within an examination protocol. Testability of IOPs is reduced, particularly for nonverbal patients and patients who use short words to communicate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".