Contrast‐balanced binocular treatment in children with deprivation amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".