Visual Rehabilitation After Retinal Prosthesis Implantation: An 18-month Case Report, From Candidate Selection to Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Various retinal implants are being developed and appear to be a promising option for improving the visual capacities of individuals with retinal dystrophy. A multidisciplinary approach to both assessment of a candidate’s factors and rehabilitation could contribute to improved activity and participation. The purpose of this study was (i) to document the approach taken by a multidisciplinary team in the candidate selection process and in training in the use of the Argus II retinal prosthesis system (RPS), and (ii) to examine the effects of the RPS on sensory and mental functions and on activity and participation. Methods: An A1-B1-A2-B2 experimental case report was used, with repeated measures pre- and post-rehabilitation program design. The A phases represent the periods with the system off, whereas the B phases represent the periods with the system on. A 65-year-old man with retinitis pigmentosa and total blindness was followed by a multidisciplinary team for over 18 months. After receiving the retinal implant, he benefited from a 10-week rehabilitation program (twice per week; B1 phase). Results: Globally, the RPS improved vision in the B phases when the system was on and visual acuity was stable at 2.3 logMAR (functional blindness). The participant’s mental and neuromusculoskeletal function scores were generally stable throughout the data collection periods. Lower performance on some measures at the end of phase B2 coincided with a negative mood. Discussion: Use of the RPS improved activity, but this did not transfer into greater participation in the living environment. Despite efforts made by the rehabilitation team to manage the user’s expectations concerning the RPS, the interventions reactivated his grieving over his vision loss. Implications for Practitioners: New technologies can make users dream of unrealistic possibilities, and managing their expectations requires problem solving supported by a multidisciplinary team.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".