Effect of Disease Progression on the PRL Location in Patients With Bilateral Central Vision Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the effect of disease progression on the monocular preferred retinal locus (PRL) of the better eye (BE) and worse eye (WE) of patients with central vision loss. Methods: = 102 eyes) with the MP-1 microperimeter in two visits that were 458 ± 249 days apart. For each eye and visit, the PRL distance from the former fovea, polar angle, and scotoma size were measured. The change in PRL location from visit 1 to visit 2 was evaluated with the differential map analysis. Results: Scotoma size increased significantly in both eyes. The PRL distance from the former fovea increased significantly from visit 1 to visit 2 in the BE, but not in the WE. The polar angle was relatively stable in both visits for the BE. The change in PRL location in the BE was predicted only by the PRL distance from the former fovea in visits 1 and 2, but not by polar angle or scotoma size. For the WE, the change in PRL location depended on the change in PRL location in the BE, rather than on measurements made on that eye. Conclusions: Disease progression affects monocular PRL location differently in the 2 eyes. The results suggest a recalibration of the oculomotor system with its reference at the PRL from the BE. Translational Relevance: These findings are important for deciding the course of treatment and/or for developing rehabilitation techniques focusing on PRL relocation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".