A Case of Different Null Zones for Distance and Near Fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A compensatory head posture (CHP) is a common clinical feature of congenital motor nystagmus. It is usually caused by an eccentric null zone, which is the eye position where the nystagmus intensity (amplitude x frequency) is least. A patient adopts the posture to maximize the binocular visual acuity. Occasionally, a patient may have more than one null zone, leading to the adoption of different CHPs at various times. A 10-year-old boy with congenital motor nystagmus and orthophoria, and with good corrected vision in both eyes, presented with a face turn that had been noted since infancy. For distance fixation, he consistently adopted a left face turn due to a null zone in right gaze. For near fixation, he adopted a right face turn due to a null zone in left gaze. Eye movement recordings confirmed the different locations of the null zones for distance and near fixation. After a trial of base-out prisms to stimulate convergence, which eliminated his head posture at both positions, he underwent artificial divergence surgery. He has had a satisfactory result for 18 months after surgery with a satisfactory head posture and a well-controlled exophoria. Measures to induce convergence, with prisms and then surgery, can be an effective strategy to correct the head postures caused by two different null zones in a patient with congenital motor nystagmus.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".