Treatment Outcome of Occlusion for Unilateral Amblyopia in Saudi Children 6-12 Years Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the rate and review determinants of successful therapy for unilateral amblyopia in children. METHODS: This prospective cohort consisted of Saudi children aged 6–12 who received amblyopia therapy between 2020 and 2022. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the amblyopic eye improved to reach the BCVA of the fellow eye at follow-up visits, or BCVA in the amblyopic eye improved and remained stable over three follow-up visits. Demographic and ocular characteristics were associated with the outcome. RESULTS: In 30 children, the median BCVA at presentation and the last follow-up was 0.8 logMAR (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.6; 1.0) and 0.45 logMAR (IQR: 0.3; 0.6), respectively. The success rate of amblyopia therapy was 80% (95% confidence interval: 65.7; 94.3). It was 100%, 76.5%, and 77.8% in eyes with anisometropic, strabismic, and mixed types of amblyopia, respectively. Amblyopia grade ( P = 0.177), type of amblyopia ( P = 0.96), and spectacles as therapy in the past ( P = 0.09) were not significantly associated with the successful out. The duration of follow-up was significantly longer in those with unsuccessful outcomes ( P = 0.05). Excellent compliance for occlusion was observed in 62.5% of children with successful outcomes. In 14 (46.7%) children, BCVA was ≤0.3 logMAR BCVA at the last follow-up. Two-line improvement in amblyopic eyes was in 26 (86.7%) children at the last follow-up compared to BCVA at presentation. CONCLUSION: Occlusion therapy complemented using glasses in older children also significantly improved visual recovery in amblyopic eyes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".