Interocular Effect During Visual Acuity Measurement With and Without Amblyopia
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: Exploratory research to investigate the monocular change in visual acuity due to type of occlusion of the fellow eye (interocular effect) in amblyopes and nonamblyopes. METHODS: The study design was a prospective convenience sampling of consecutive eye clinic patients with amblyopia/amblyogenic factors and visually normal volunteers. Participants were divided into two main groups based on entry-level visual acuity using clinical methods: amblyopes (≥2 lines interocular difference) and nonamblyopes. Ocular alignment, refractive error, stereoacuity, fixation status, and retinal correspondence were determined. The change in acuity of the nondominant eye based on two types of dominant eye occlusion (translucent, lightproof) was derived from a computer-generated acuity test using staircase methodology. RESULTS: Some participants in each main group had an interocular effect of up to 0.15 logMAR. However, both overall group means did not show an improved visual acuity with one type of occlusion compared to the other. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant increase in the magnitude of interocular effect with esodeviations and abnormal retinal correspondence. Ansiometropic and strabismic amblyopes differed, showing monocular improvements with lightproof and translucent occlusion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interocular effect related to the amount of light transmission allowed by the type of occlusion over the dominant eye may differ in amblyopia subtypes and increased magnitude of effect is related to the presence of esotropia and abnormal retinal correspondence.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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