A Comparison of Near Strabismus Measurements with Different Fixation Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: It has been reported there is a difference in the size of esodeviations when using letters compared to pictures or lights as a fixation target. In many clinics, small picture stickers are used as a target for preliterate or uncooperative children. In this study, experimental stickers with detailed pictures were compared to the Lang fixation cube and a monochromatic circle to assess their suitability as near fixation targets for the measurement of near deviations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants were 3-5 years of age and had an esodeviation. The near angle of deviation was measured using the three targets and compared to determine if treatment would be affected. Clinical significance is based on a difference of 5 prism diopters (PD) as this could potentially change the treatment plan. RESULTS: The results of the study show no clinically significant difference when comparing the three near targets. The experimental sticker induced the most accommodation, followed by the Lang fixation cube and then the red circle sticker. CONCLUSION: Although none of the mean differences between the target comparisons reached the clinically significant threshold set, it should be considered that over one third of participants had a clinically significant difference in the esodeviation measurement at 33 cm when using the detailed picture sticker when compared to the red circle sticker.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".