MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034857287 · doi:10.1002/ana.25820

Vision Therapy: Ocular Motor Training in Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

2020· review· en· W3034857287 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Neurology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Ocular and Foreign Body Injuries
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsTraumatic brain injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationConvergence insufficiencyIntervention (counseling)RehabilitationConcussionPsychologyMedicineCognitionFixation (population genetics)Physical therapyPoison controlInjury preventionPsychiatryMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vision therapy in the form of ocular motor training is increasingly used to treat visual complaints, particularly in the setting of persistent symptoms after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). In this review, we discuss the rationale behind this intervention and the evidence for its utility. Although the efficacy of exercises for primary convergence insufficiency is plausible and supported by data, there is not yet strong evidence of benefit for the post-traumatic variant. It is not established that abnormalities in fixation, pursuit, and saccades in mTBI are the cause of post-concussive symptoms, or that these abnormalities arise from ocular motor damage rather than being secondary effects of cognitive problems with attention or executive control. The few studies to date have significant methodological weaknesses. More substantial evidence is required before vision therapy can be accepted as a useful tool in the rehabilitation of patients with brain trauma. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:453-461.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.230
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it