Sensory eye balance in surgically corrected intermittent exotropes with normal stereopsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgery to align a deviated or strabismic eye is often done for both functional as well as cosmetic reasons. Although amblyopia is often an impediment to regaining full binocularity in strabismics in general, intermittent exotropes, because their deviation is intermittent, have no amblyopia and some degree of stereopsis. Binocular function, including a balanced ocular dominance, could be expected to be normal after surgical correction if normal levels of stereopsis and visual acuity are postsurgically achieved. Here we used a binocular phase combination paradigm to quantitatively assess the ocular dominance in a group of surgically corrected intermittent exotropes who have normal stereo and visual acuity as defined clinically. Interestingly, we found significant interocular imbalance (balance point < 0.9) in most of the surgically treated patients (8 out 10) but in none of the controls. We conclude that the two eyes may still have a residual sensory imbalance in surgically corrected strabismus even if stereopsis is within normal limits. Our study opens the possibility that a further treatment aimed at re-balancing the ocular dominance might be necessary in surgically treated intermittent exotropia to provide more efficient binocular processing in the long term.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".