Social inequities and visual function in pediatric ophthalmology populations: a small cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives The relationship between visual function and social determinants of health in pediatric ophthalmology patients is unclear. Our study evaluated the feasibility of screening for social determinants of health in ophthalmology clinics, assess the prevalence of these risk factors, and to clarify the relationship between social determinants of health and visual function. Methods An institution approved survey on social determinants of health risk factors was completed by 145 patients from five pediatric ophthalmology outpatient clinics in British Columbia. Medical charts of survey participants were reviewed to determine diagnoses and level of visual function. Descriptive statistics, univariate, and multivariate analysis were performed. Results Socioeconomic risk factors were present in all pediatric ophthalmology settings. 56% (n=81) of participants reported having at least one risk factor. Characteristics of poverty, including annual household income, size of support network, adverse childhood experiences, and level of parental education, were not associated with level of visual function. Food insecurity, housing instability, low income, and lack of social support were all associated with a higher adverse event scores (p<0.05). Patients who experienced food insecurity were more likely (OR 7.14, 95% CI 1.47-38.44) to have an adverse childhood experience score of four or more compared to patients who did not have any risk factors. Conclusions Our study found no relationship between the level of visual function and social determinants of health risk factors. Given that all pediatric ophthalmology populations experience socioeconomic poverty, the need to establish social screening and social work support is pertinent in all pediatric ophthalmology clinics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".