Prevalence and pattern of refractive errors among primary school children in Al Hassa , Saudi Arabia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some 12.8 million in the age group 5-15 years are visually impaired from uncorrected or inadequately corrected refractive errors. In Saudi Arabia, the size of this public health problem is not well defined especially among primary schoolchildren. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the prevalence and pattern of refractive errors among primary school children in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia. A total of 2246 Saudi primary school children aged 6 to 14 years of both genders were selected using multistage sampling method form 30 primary schools located in the three different areas of Al Hassa. School children were interviewed to collect demographics and vision data using a special data collection form followed by screening for refractive errors by trained optometrists within the school premises using a standardized protocol. Assessment of visual acuity and ocular motility evaluation were carried out and cover-uncover test was performed. Children detected with defective vision were referred for further examination employing subjective refraction with auto refractometer and objective refraction using streak retinoscopy after 1% cyclopentolate. Of the screened school children (N=2002), the overall prevalence of refractive errors was 13.7% (n=274), higher among females (Odds ratio, OR=1.39, P=0.012) and significantly more among students of rural residence (OR=2.40, P=0.001). The prevalence of refractive errors was disproportionately more among those aged 12-14 years (OR=9.02, P=0.001). Only 9.4% of students with poor vision were wore spectacles for correction. Myopia was the most commonly encountered refractive error among both genders (65.7% of the total errors encountered). Uncorrected refractive errors affected a sizable portion of primary school children in Al Hassa, Saudi Arabia. Primary schoolchildren especially females, rural and older children represents high risk group for refractive errors for which the included children were unaware.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".