Refractive Errors and Binocular Vision Anomalies among Young University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been reported that refractive errors (RE) and binocular vision (BV) anomalies are common among university students. In this study we aimed to assess RE and BV status among university students in Saudi Arabia, and its relation to the academic performance. We recruited 109 participants (aged from 18 to 21 years). Visual acuity (VA) and objective refraction were used to assess the refractive status. Cover test, near-point convergence (NPC) and stereopsis tests were used to assess the BV status. Convergence insufficiency symptom survey (CISS) was applied to quantify near-work related symptoms. Mann-Whitney U test (p value was set as p < 0.05) was used to compare VA, CISS, NPC and the academic performance between the groups who had heterophoria versus orthophoria. We found that there was only 38% emmetrope, while the percentage of heterophoria was 45.8%. The academic performance was not statistically different among the two groups, but CISS and stereopsis scores were significantly different (p < 0.03). We concluded that RE and BV anomalies were common among university students in Saudi Arabia, but did not affect the academic performance. More studies are warranted to understand the low scores of CISS and stereoacuity, and their association with RE and BV anomalies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".