MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200038252 · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2021.107974

“Emmetropic, but not myopic human eyes distinguish positive defocus from calculated defocus in monochromatic red light”

2021· article· en· W4200038252 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Barbara Świątczak, Frank Schaeffel

Bibliographic record

VenueVision Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBedford Institute of Oceanography
KeywordsEmmetropiaOpticsChromatic aberrationMonochromatic colorChromatic scaleLuminanceContrast (vision)Human eyePhysicsOptometryRefractive errorVisual acuityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies in animal models have provided evidence that broadband light and chromatic cues are necessary for successful emmetropization. We have studied this question in young human subjects by measuring short-term changes in axial length when they watched movies with calculated defocus (2.5D) or optically defocused movies (+2.5D) with red interference filters (620 ± 10 nm). Since filters cut luminance down by a factor of 10, a control experiment with neutral density filters (ND 1.0) was done. Ten myopes and 10 emmetropes were studied. Four experimental conditions were tested on two separate days. On the first day, movies with calculated defocus, and defocused by positive lenses were watched with ND filters. On the second day, movies with the same defocus patterns were watched with the red filters. Movies were presented on a large TV screen (LG OLED65C9, 65″) in a dark room at 2 m distance for 30 min. Changes in axial length before and after each stimulation were measured with the Lenstar (LS 900, with autopositioning system; Haag-Streit). Interestingly, the effects of calculated defocus or optical positive defocus on axial length were suppressed by 1.0 ND filters in myopes and emmetropes, with no clear trend. In contrast, narrow-band red light suppressed eye elongation with calculated defocus but not eye shortening with positive defocus in emmetropes. In myopes, as previously found in white light, there was a trend of axial eye elongation with positive lenses. In conclusion, the effect of positive lenses on eye growth did not require chromatic cues.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVision ResearchSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207