A comparison of therapies using Eyetronix Flicker Glass And standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract Objective Eyetronix Flicker Glass (EFG) has been introduced an alternative treatment for amblyopia. It is based on the premise that amblyopia can better be treated by manipulating the visual input that enter both the normal and amblyopic eye. In contrast, only the normal eye gets deprived during the traditional patching therapy. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of the therapies using the Eyetronix Flicker Glass and standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia. Design A prospective, randomized controlled trial Participants: 31 children aged 4-13 years with anisometropic amblyopia Intervention: The patients were assigned two treatment groups and were treated for 12 weeks. Those in the first group were treated with the Eyetronix Flicker Glass for one hour per day, whereas those in the latter group were treated with the standard patches for two hours per day. Main outcome measures Best-corrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye, stereopsis and fusion range were measured at both before the treatment and 3, 6 and 12 weeks after the first day of the treatment. Results Visual acuity of the amblyopic eye significantly improved in both groups after the treatment (p < 0.05), albeit more so in patients who had undergone the standard patching therapy. A significant improvement in contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye at 3, 6 and 12 cpd was also observed in patients who had undergone the standard patching therapy (p < 0.05) but not the EFG therapy (p > 0.05). However, no improvement in stereopsis and fusion range was found in patients from both treatment groups. Conclusion Both therapies improved monocular visual functions, such as visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. However, the improvement was significantly larger after the standard patching therapy than that of the EFG therapy. However, both therapies did not improve fusion range and stereopsis. Our results indicate that although the EFG therapy deprives visual input in a binocular fashion, it does not improve binocular functions in the amblyopic population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".