Binocular Training Reduces Amblyopic Visual Acuity Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amblyopia is the most common cause of monocular visual impairment. Patching, which is modestly effective, is the current treatment of amblyopia in children. There is no clinically approved treatment for adults. The present study is a clinical trial (non-sham controlled and non-randomized) that assessed the efficacy of binocular training for improvement of the visual acuity in children and adults with amblyopia. Twenty-two amblyopic subjects ranging in age from 5 to 73 (mean: 36.2) years for whom patching and/or surgical treatments did not correct their visual impairment completed an average of 14.5 sessions of binocular training over a period of 4 to 6 weeks. Random dot kinematograms were presented dichoptically to the two eyes and the participants' task was to identify the direction of motion of the targets. Mean visual acuity improvement was 0.34 LogMAR (range: 0.1-0.58 LogMAR) and was shown to persist 6 months following the cessation of binocular training. Our study provides results in a large number of patients that confirm the clinical effectiveness of binocular training as a treatment for amblyopia in improving visual acuity in both children and adults. Moreover, this study is the first to demonstrate that the improvements in visual function were maintained for 6 months in the absence of any additional treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".