Repeated Surgery for Acute Acquired Esotropia: Is It Worth the Effort?
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: Good binocular potential has been a fundamental defining characteristic of acute acquired concomitant esotropia (AACE) type II. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the clinical features and surgical outcome in children with AACE type II who underwent repeated surgery for the sake of binocularity. METHODS: In 4 children with AACE type II, repeated surgery was performed between 1995 and 2008. These cases are presented with special attention to their long-term follow-up and their binocularity outcome. RESULTS: The final binocularity outcome was high-grade stereopsis (Lang I/II positive) in all 4 cases. The duration from onset of esotropia to the time of regained stereovision was between 20 and 62 months. In one case, high-grade stereoacuity was only achieved after a second surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the good binocular potential in patients with AACE type II. Despite a complicated course and long-lasting absence of stereovision, all patients eventually regained highgrade stereopsis. Resolutely aiming at realignment seems to be worth the effort.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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