Binocular Summation of Visual Acuity at High and Low Contrast in Early Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRCIS: This study examined the integrity of binocular summation function in patients with mild glaucoma. We found that binocular summation of visual acuity is preserved in these patients, despite their reduced monocular inputs. PURPOSE: Binocular summation represents superiority of binocular to monocular performance. In this study we examined the integrity of binocular summation function in patients with early glaucoma who had structural glaucomatous changes but otherwise had no significant interocular acuity asymmetry or other functional deficit detected with standard clinical measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants included 48 patients with early glaucoma according to Hodapp, Anderson, and Parrish 2 (HAP2) criteria (age 65±12 y) and 42 healthy controls (age 60±12 y), matched for stereoacuity. Visual acuity was assessed binocularly and monocularly at high (95%) and low (25%) contrast using the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts at 6 m. Binocular acuity summation was evaluated utilizing a binocular ratio (BR). RESULTS: Overall, binocular and monocular visual acuity of the control group was better than that of the glaucoma group for both contrast levels, P =0.001. For the glaucoma group, there was a significant difference between BRs at high and low contrast, 0.01±0.05 and 0.04±0.06 ( P =0.003), respectively. For the control group, the difference between BR at high and low contrast was not statistically significant, 0.00±0.07 and 0.02±0.06 ( P =0.25), respectively. CONCLUSION: For patients with early glaucoma, binocular summation function for visual acuity was preserved at both contrast levels. This suggests an adaptation of the visual system in early stages of glaucoma that allows for normal binocular summation in the presence of reduced monocular visual input.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".