Western Australia Atropine for the Treatment of Myopia (WA‐ATOM) study: Rationale, methodology and participant baseline characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Atropine eyedrops are a promising treatment for slowing myopia progression in East Asian children. However, its effects on children in Australia, including those of non-Asian background, have not been well-studied. BACKGROUND: The Western Australia Atropine for the Treatment of Myopia (WA-ATOM) study aims to determine the efficacy and long-term effects of low-dose atropine eyedrops in myopia control. This paper describes the study rationale, methodology and participant baseline characteristics. DESIGN: Single-centre, double-masked, randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Children (6-16 years) with spherical equivalent ≤-1.50 D in each eye, astigmatism ≤1.50 D and myopia progression by ≥0.50 D/year. METHODS: Enrolled children were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive 0.01% atropine or placebo eyedrops. Participants are examined every 6 months during first 3 years of the study (2-year treatment phase followed by a 1-year washout phase), and then at a 5-year follow-up (2 years after the end of the washout phase). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Annual progression rate of myopia and axial length, tolerability to eyedrops and incidence and severity of unwanted effects. RESULTS: Out of 311 children who were referred, 242 were suitable for study participation, and 153 were subsequently enrolled. The baseline characteristics of enrolled participants are presented. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Outcomes of the WA-ATOM study will inform on the efficacy, tolerability, safety and long-term effects of low-dose atropine eyedrops in myopia control in Australian children. The impact of ocular sun exposure, iris colour and parental myopia on the efficacy of low-dose atropine will also be assessed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".