Bifocals in down: A study on the effect of bifocals in children with down syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
N vision is reduced in most children with Down Syndrome (DS). This is an additional barrier achieving their maximum potential in development. DS is one of the most common genetic anomalies, occurring in about 14.6 in 10000 live births in the Netherlands in 2007. In the last two decades many researches has been performed to study the differences in ocular findings between children with and without DS. Some previous smaller studies by J.M. Woodhouse et al (Cardiff UK 2001-2009) and K Nanda Kumar and S.J. Leat (Toronto Canada 2009-2010) showed that bifocal correction could be a tailor-made treatment for children with DS. Therefore we started a study in children with DS in the Netherlands. Bifocals are rarely prescribed. Usually children with DS receive single vision glasses for distance. By means of our multicentre randomized controlled trail (RCT) we aim to establish whom to prescribe bifocals and to identify possible prognostic determinants (at start, baseline measurement before therapy with bifocals) for improvement of visual acuity at near. A multicentre randomized controlled trail (RCT) in 15 participating locations in the Netherlands. In order to be able to show differences between the effect of usual care and the new intervention, the bifocals, we included 110 children, 2-18 years old, with DS and accommodation deficit, who had not worn bifocals before. Bifocals were prescribed for children (n=55) in the intervention group and single vision glasses for distance were prescribed in the control group (n=55). We study the effect of these two interventions on visual acuity at near and at distance, on accommodation and occurrence of strabismus and task readiness (monitoring executive functions). Inclusion time started June 2015 and was completed March 2016. Baseline measurements such as refractive errors, near visual acuity, distance visual acuity and accommodation deficit will be presented.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".