MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210630783 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001873

Long‐term Effect of Dual‐focus Contact Lenses on Myopia Progression in Children: A 6‐year Multicenter Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4210630783 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDioptreContact lensRefractive errorMedicineOphthalmologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialOptometryVisual acuitySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE Treatment of myopic children with a dual‐focus soft contact lens (DFCL; MiSight 1 day) produced sustained slowing of myopia progression over a 6‐year period. Significant slowing was also observed in children switched from a single vision control to treatment lenses (3 years in each lens). PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of DFCLs in sustaining slowed progression of juvenile‐onset myopia over a 6‐year treatment period and assess myopia progression in children who were switched to a DFCL at the end of year 3. METHODS Part 1 was a 3‐year clinical trial comparing DFCLs with a control contact lens (Proclear 1 day) at four investigational sites. In part 2, subjects completing part 1 were invited to continue for 3 additional years during which all children were treated with MiSight 1 day DFCLs (52 and 56 from the initially treated [T6] and control [T3] groups, respectively). Eighty‐five subjects (45 [T3] and 40 [T6]) completed part 2. Cyclopleged spherical equivalent refractive errors (SEREs) and axial lengths (ALs) were monitored, and a linear mixed model was used to compare their adjusted change annually. RESULTS Average ages at part 2 baseline were 13.2 ± 1.3 and 13.0 ± 1.5 years for the T6 and T3 groups, respectively. Slowed myopia progression in the T6 group observed during part 1 was sustained throughout part 2 (mean ± standard error of the mean: change from baseline SERE [in diopters], −0.52 ± 0.076 vs. −0.51 ± 0.076; change in AL [in millimeters], 0.28 ± 0.033 vs. 0.23 ± 0.033; both P >. 05). Comparing progression rates in part 2 for the T6 and T3 groups, respectively, indicates that prior treatment does not influence efficacy (SERE, −0.51 ± 0.076 vs. −0.34 ± 0.077; AL, 0.23 ± 0.03 vs. 0.18 ± 0.03; both P >. 05). Within‐eye comparisons of AL growth revealed a 71% slowing for the T3 group (3 years older than part 1) and further revealed a small subset of eyes (10%) that did not respond to treatment. CONCLUSIONS Dual‐focus soft contact lenses continue to slow the progression of myopia in children over a 6‐year period revealing an accumulation of treatment effect. Eye growth of the initial control cohort with DFCL was slowed by 71% over the subsequent 3‐year treatment period.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.488 · 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