Binocular benefits of optical treatment in anisometropic amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the effect of optical treatment on sensory eye balance in anisometropic amblyopia. Fourteen individuals (age: 13.7 ± 8.4 years old) with previously untreated anisometropic amblyopia were enrolled in the study. The average magnitude of their anisometropia (spherical equivalent) was 4.02 ± 1.19 DS. Their best corrected monocular visual acuity and sensory eye balance were measured before and after a 2-month period of full refractive correction (i.e., our optical treatment). Spectacle-corrected distance visual acuity (at 5 m) was measured monocularly using the Tumbling E Chart. Sensory eye balance was quantitatively assessed using a binocular phase-combination paradigm to determine the interocular contrast ratio at which the two eyes were balanced in binocular sensory combination (i.e., the balance point). We found that both interocular contrast ratio at the balance point (p = 0.006) and visual acuity of the amblyopic eye (p < 0.001) were significantly improved after 2 months of optical treatment, often referred to as refractive adaptation. We conclude that sustained optical treatment improves interocular sensory balance in anisometropic amblyopia as well as monocular acuity. Optical treatment is a passive form of binocular therapy and a necessary first step in treating the binocular dysfunction that characterizes amblyopia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".