Amblyopia is associated with impaired balance in 3–6-year-old children in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose School-age children in China have more advanced motor development than their North American counterparts. This is likely due to cultural differences in children’s regular motor activities. It is unknown whether the motor function impairments associated with binocular visual disorders (BVDs) such as amblyopia in children raised in North America exist for children raised in China. Design Prospective case-control study. Methods A major tertiary eye hospital in China tested children aged 3 to <7 ( n = 63) belonging to three groups: anisometropic or strabismic amblyopia ( n = 22), anisometropia or strabismus without amblyopia ( n = 20), or controls ( n = 21). The main outcome measure was motor function scores (Movement Assessment Battery for Children 2nd edition). Results Balance scores varied significantly across groups ( F 2,61 = 4.2, p = 0.02) with the amblyopia group (mean ± SD: 12.5 ± 3.0) exhibiting significantly poorer scores than controls (14.8 ± 2.3). The no-amblyopia BVD group (12.8 ± 3.1) did not differ significantly from the other groups. Manual dexterity, catching and throwing and total scores did not vary significantly across the three groups. A separate pre-planned comparison of only the amblyopia and control groups revealed significantly poorer total motor scores in the amblyopia group (10.1 ± 3.2) vs. controls (12 ± 2.4). A linear regression model was unable to significantly predict associations between total motor score and binocular function score (standardized β = −0.09, 95%, p = 0.7), amblyopia etiology (standardized β = 0.14, 95%, p = 0.4), or inter-ocular acuity difference (standardized β = −0.18, 95%, p = 0.4), in the amblyopia group. Conclusion Amblyopia is associated with motor function impairment in children raised in China. Motor deficits that may impact everyday activities have been observed in patients with amblyopia across multiple cultures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".