Access to Pediatric Eye Care During a Pandemic: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual impairment affects many children and can lead to blindness if untreated. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to various restrictions and other challenges accessing in-person medical care, including essential pediatric eye care. The aim of this article was to determine and quantify the effect that pandemics have on access to pediatric eye care. A systematic literature search was conducted using various databases, which yielded 257 articles; nine were included in the final review. All included studies reported a decrease in the number of children accessing eye care during COVID-19. Most studies described virtual triage systems, which restricted in-person care to emergent cases. The average decrease in daily pediatric visits was 67.32% and reached statistical significance in the meta-analysis ( P < .01). However, out of all patients with ocular complaints, the proportion of pediatric visits was unchanged, suggesting that the decrease in access to eye care was not specific to pediatric patients. [ Pediatr Ann . 2023;52(2):e68–e75.]
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".