MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206530208 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.9.635

Children at risk of developing amblyopia: When to refer for an eye examination

2004· article· en· W2206530208 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Howard Backman

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMedicinePrimary carePopulationEye examinationHealth professionalsOptometryHealth carePediatricsFamily medicineNursingVisual acuityEnvironmental healthOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amblyopia is a sensory vision deficit that may be detected, diagnosed and treated best during the early stages of visual development. Only a small percentage of the paediatric population receive oculovisual examinations during this critical period of development even though such care is often free and easily accessible. Vision screening programs exist in certain states in the United States and in several European countries. Unfortunately, these programs are rarely implemented in Canada because of limited resources.Alternatively, screening at-risk infants may be more efficient and cost-effective in the early detection of amblyopia. Educating and training health care professionals, such as paediatricians, to recognize certain risk factors for amblyopia and encouraging early referral of the at-risk child to an eye care professional may prevent the development of amblyopia. The at-risk child has been defined to guide paediatricians and other primary health care professionals as to when to refer these children, the appropriate frequency of follow-up evaluations and the comanagement of compliance and 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207