A Comparison of the Maximum Deviation Measured in Intermittent Exotropia Using Various Clinical Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: In the Intermittent Exotropia (IXT) population determining the largest deviation for surgical planning has been suggested for desired surgical outcomes Throughout the literature, the clinical tests that elicit largest deviation remains unclear.Patients and Methods: 24 IXT subjects were measured at the customary 1/3 m and 6 m fixation, with +3D lenses at 1/3 m, at far distance (20 m), 1/3 m and 6 m after PMO, with +3D lenses at 1/3 m after PMO, and far distance (20 m) after PMO, in an attempt to determine which of these conditions elicit the largest exodeviation.Results: At near, all subjects had clinically significant increases with at least one condition. In 87.5%, clinical and statistical increases occurred with +3D lenses and/or with +3D after PMO. There was no statistically significant difference between those conditions. At distance, 16.7% demonstrated clinically significant increases. Two increased at 20 m and 6 m after PMO similarly, and all increased at 20 m fixation with or without PMO, without a significant difference between measurements at 20 m and 20 m after PMO. All increases at 20m, with and without PMO were statistically significant.Conclusion: This research indicates that measurements with +3D lenses and at 20 m are the most efficient for the maximum deviation in IXT patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".