Intraocular pressure and myopia progression in Chinese children: the Anyang Childhood Eye Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between intraocular pressure (IOP) at baseline and myopia progression in Chinese children from the Anyang Childhood Eye Study. DESIGN: Prospective school-based cohort study. METHODS: A total of 1558 grade 7 students completed the entire 2-year study. Ocular biometry, cycloplegic refractions and pneumotonometry were performed. Three years of follow-up have been completed for the children aged 12 years. The refractive groups and the tertiles of IOP were assessed by analysis of variance, to look for differences in mean values of spherical equivalent and IOP, respectively. RESULTS: The children's mean baseline IOP was 15.87±3.42 mm Hg. Mean IOP was significantly higher in girls by 0.57 mm Hg (p=0.024). In the whole sample, there was a mean change in spherical equivalent of -1.05 D over 2 years. The baseline IOP was 15.69 mm Hg in those progressing 1 D or more vs 16.09 mm Hg for those progressing <1 D (p=0.022). In the myopic group, myopes progressing >1 D had mean IOP of 15.94 vs 16.42 mm Hg for those myopes progressing 1 D or less (p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Chinese children, myopia progression over 2 years was inversely related to IOP, suggesting that IOP had essentially no relationship with myopia progression in school children. The lower IOP in progressing myopic eyes may indicate more compliant sclerae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".