Assessment of the Clinical Effectiveness of DRL Orthokeratology Lenses vs. Single-Vision Spectacles in Controlling the Progression of Myopia in Children and Teenagers: 2 Year Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of orthokeratology treatment with DRL lenses on the control of myopia progression compared with single vision glasses users (monofocal glasses). It was also possible to analyze the clinical efficacy of orthokeratology treatment with DRL lenses for myopia correction in children and adolescents in a 2 year retrospective, multicenter study, performed in eight different ophthalmology centers in France. A total of 360 data records of children and adolescents with myopia between −0.50 D and −7.00 D at baseline visit, who completed treatment and had a centered outcome, were selected for the study from a database of 1271. The final sample included subjects undergoing orthokeratology treatment with DRL lenses (n = 211 eyes) and spectacle wearers (n = 149 eyes). After one year of treatment, the data analysis shows that the DRL lens has a refractive myopia progression control rate of 78.5% compared with the spectacle wearers (DRL M change = −0.10 ± 0.25 D, p < 0.001 Wilcoxon test and Glasses M change = −0.44 ± 0.38 D, p < 0.001 Wilcoxon test). Similar results were found after 2 years of treatment (80% with 310 eyes). This study showed the clinical efficacy of orthokeratology DRL lenses compared to monofocal spectacle wearers in controlling myopia progression in children and adolescents in a 2 year retrospective study.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".