MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768375644 · doi:10.1111/cxo.12630

Contrast‐balanced binocular treatment in children with deprivation amblyopia

2017· article· en· W2768375644 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Optometry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceState Key Laboratory of OphthalmologyNeurological Foundation of New Zealand
KeywordsContrast (vision)AnisometropiaMedicineVisual acuitySensory deprivationOphthalmologyCataractsBinocular visionOptometryOcular dominanceAudiologyPsychologyVisual cortexRefractive errorOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Children with deprivation amblyopia due to childhood cataract have been excluded from much of the emerging research into amblyopia treatment. An investigation was conducted to determine whether contrast-balanced binocular treatment - a strategy currently being explored for children with anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia - may be effective in children with deprivation amblyopia. METHODS: An unmasked, case-series design intended to assess proof of principle was employed. Eighteen children with deprivation amblyopia due to childhood cataracts (early bilateral n = 7, early unilateral n = 7, developmental n = 4), as well as 10 children with anisometropic (n = 8) or mixed anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia (n = 2) were prescribed one hour a day of treatment over a six-week period. Supervised treatment was available. Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, global motion perception and interocular suppression were measured pre- and post-treatment. RESULTS: Visual acuity improvements occurred in the anisometropic/strabismic group (0.15 ± 0.05 logMAR, p = 0.014), but contrast sensitivity did not change. As a group, children with deprivation amblyopia had a smaller but statistically significant improvement in weaker eye visual acuity (0.09 ± 0.03 logMAR, p = 0.004), as well a significant improvement in weaker eye contrast sensitivity (p = 0.004). Subgroup analysis suggested that the children with early bilateral deprivation had the largest improvements, while children with early unilateral cataract did not improve. Interestingly, binocular contrast sensitivity also improved in children with early bilateral deprivation. Global motion perception improved for both subgroups with early visual deprivation, as well as children with anisometropic or mixed anisometropic/strabismic amblyopia. Interocular suppression improved for all subgroups except children with early unilateral deprivation. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that supervised contrast-balanced binocular treatment should be further investigated as a treatment option for children with deprivation amblyopia. However, for children with more severe deprivation amblyopia due to early unilateral cataracts, supplementary or alternative options should also be explored.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.406 · 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