Can ocular dominance plasticity provide a general index to visual plasticity to personalize treatment in amblyopia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Recently, Lunghi et al showed that amblyopic eye’s visual acuity per se after 2 months of occlusion therapy could be predicted by a homeostatic plasticity, i.e., the temporary shift of ocular dominance observed after a 2-hour monocular deprivation, in children with anisometropic amblyopia(Lunghi et al., 2016). In this study, we assess whether the visual acuity improvement of the amblyopic eye measured after 2 months of occlusion therapy could be predicted by this plasticity. Methods Seven children (6.86 ± 1.46 years old; SD) with anisometropic amblyopia participated in this study. All patients were newly diagnosed and had no treatment history before participating in our study. They had finished 2 months of refractive adaptation and then received a 4-hour daily fellow eye patching therapy with an opaque patch for a 2-month period. Best-corrected visual acuity of the amblyopic eye was measured before and after the patching therapy. The homeostatic plasticity was assessed by measuring the temporary shift of ocular dominance observed after 2 hours of occlusion for the amblyopic eye before the treatment started. A binocular phase combination paradigm was used for this test. Results We found that there was no significant correlation between the temporary shift of ocular dominance observed after 2 hours of occlusion for the amblyopic eye before the treatment started and the visual acuity gain obtained by the amblyopic eye from 2-month of classical patching therapy. This result involving the short-term patching of the amblyopic eye is consistent with a reanalysis of Lunghi et al’ s data. Conclusions Ocular dominance plasticity does not provide an index of cortical plasticity in the general sense such that it could be used to predict acuity outcomes from longer term classical patching.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".