MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739433006 · doi:10.1111/opo.12400

Myopia progression control lens reverses induced myopia in chicks

2017· article· en· W2739433006 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth L. Irving, Cristina Yakobchuk‐Stanger

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic and Physiological Optics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRefractive errorOphthalmologyLens (geology)MedicinePupilEye diseaseOptometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine whether lens induced myopia in chicks can be reversed or reduced by wearing myopia progression control lenses of the same nominal (central) power but different peripheral designs. METHODS: Newly hatched chicks wore -10D Conventional lenses unilaterally for 7 days. The myopic chicks were then randomly divided into three groups: one fitted with Type 1 myopia progression control lenses, the second with Type 2 myopia progression control lenses and the third continued to wear Conventional lenses for seven more days. All lenses had -10D central power, but Type 1 and Type 2 lenses had differing peripheral designs; +2.75D and +1.32D power rise at pupil edge, respectively. Axial length and refractive error were measured on Days 0, 7 and 14. Analyses were performed on the mean differences between treated and untreated eyes. RESULTS: Refractive error and axial length differences between treated and untreated eyes were insignificant on Day 0. On Day 7 treated eyes were longer (T1; 0.44 ± 0.07 mm, T2; 0.27 ± 0.06 mm, C; 0.40 ± 0.06 mm) and more myopic (T1; -9.61 ± 0.52D, T2; -9.57 ± 0.61D, C; -9.50 ± 0.58D) than untreated eyes with no significant differences between treatment groups. On Day 14 myopia was reversed (+2.91 ± 1.08D), reduced (-3.83 ± 0.94D) or insignificantly increased (-11.89 ± 0.79D) in treated eyes of Type 1, Type 2 and Conventional treated chicks respectively. Relative changes in axial lengths (T1; -0.13 ± 0.09 mm, T2; 0.36 ± 0.09 mm, C; 0.56 ± 0.05 mm) were consistent with changes in refraction. Refractive error differences were significant for all group comparisons (p < 0.001). Type 1 length differences were significantly different from Conventional and Type 2 groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Myopia progression control lens designs can reverse lens-induced myopia in chicks. The effect is primarily due to axial length changes. Different lens designs produce different effects indicating that lens design is important in modifying refractive error.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic and Physiological OpticsSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207