What the Canadian public (mis)understands about eyes and eye care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Inadequate public knowledge about eyes and eye care poses avoidable risks to vision-related quality of life. BACKGROUND: This study of eye care knowledge among Canadians extends earlier findings from focus groups. METHODS: Perceptions about eyes and eye care were sought using a 21-item online survey and snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria were living in Canada and being at least 18-years old; eye care professionals and staff were excluded. Response frequencies were converted to percentages, with eye condition items analysed according to 'expected' or 'unexpected' eye impacts. Proportions selecting these impacts or 'unsure' were determined. RESULTS: There were 424 respondents: 83.0% aged 20-65 years and 69.6% female. Mismatches existed between perceived recommendations and behaviours for booking eye exams: within two years (86.7% vs. 68.4%) and symptom-driven (3.3% vs. 13.0%). First eye exams after age one year were deemed appropriate by 43.6%. Few respondents associated glaucoma with no symptoms (6.0%) or amblyopia with blurred vision (13.5%). A notable proportion incorrectly related tunnel vision with age-related macular degeneration (AMD, 36.8%) and cataract (21.9%). Identifying all 'expected' responses was unlikely for glaucoma (1.9%), amblyopia (6.7%), and cataract (12.0%). Most respondents identified no 'expected' effects for glaucoma (63.8%) and AMD (46.2%) and some 'expected' effects for cataract (59.5%) and amblyopia (72.6%). Selecting 'unsure' was 9-10 times more common among respondents choosing no 'expected' impacts than those choosing some. Awareness of thyroid-associated eye disease was lowest (32.4%) of seven conditions. Respondents were most likely to consult optometrists for routine eye exams, eye disease, diabetes eye checks and blurred vision but family physicians for red eyes and sore eyes. Respondents typically paid for their eye exams and eyewear but wanted government to pay. CONCLUSION: Vision-threatening knowledge gaps and misinformation about eyes and eye care among Canadian respondents highlight the need for accessible, targeted public education.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".