The Impact of Hyperopia on Academic Performance Among Children: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the impact of uncorrected hyperopia and hyperopic spectacle correction on children's academic performance. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 9 electronic databases from inception to July 26, 2021, for studies assessing associations between hyperopia and academic performance. There were no restrictions on language, publication date, or geographic location. A quality checklist was applied. Random-effects models estimated pooled effect size as a standardized mean difference (SMD) in 4 outcome domains: cognitive skills, educational performance, reading skills, and reading speed. (PROSPERO registration: CRD-42021268972). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (21 observational and 4 interventional) out of 3415 met the inclusion criteria. No full-scale randomized trials were identified. Meta-analyses of the 5 studies revealed a small but significant adverse effect on educational performance in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children {SMD -0.18 [95% confidence interval (CI), -0.27 to -0.09]; P < 0.001, 4 studies} and a moderate negative effect on reading skills in uncorrected hyperopic compared to emmetropic children [SMD -0.46 (95% CI, -0.90 to -0.03); P = 0.036, 3 studies]. Reading skills were significantly worse in hyperopic than myopic children [SMD -0.29 (95% CI, -0.43 to -0.15); P < 0.001, 1 study]. Qualitative analysis on 10 (52.6%) of 19 studies excluded from meta-analysis found a significant (P < 0.05) association between uncorrected hyperopia and impaired academic performance. Two interventional studies found hyperopic spectacle correction significantly improved reading speed (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that uncorrected hyperopia is associated with poor academic performance. Given the limitations of current methodologies, further research is needed to evaluate the impact on academic performance of providing hyperopic correction.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it