Innovative vision rehabilitation method for epiretinal membrane: Enhancing visual functions through Biofeedback Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To report a case with epiretinal membrane (ERM) treated with audio-luminous Biofeedback training (BT) which resulted in improvement of monocular and binocular visual functions. Observations: We report a case of ERM with distance Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) of 20/40 in the right dominant eye, and 20/20 in the left eye. The main symptom was binocular blurry vision, and the patient did not desire to pursue posterior vitrectomy due to its risks. Using a 10-2 microperimetry test with the MAIA Microperimeter, it was possible to identify an inferior paracentral relative scotoma in the right eye with splitting fixation. The right eye was trained with five 20-minute sessions with Biofeedback training towards a trained retinal locus (TRL) with better retinal sensitivity and 1.46° superior and temporal to the current preferred retinal locus (PRL). After training, the patient reported total improvement of symptoms, and BCVA was 20/25 in the right eye and 20/20 in the left eye. Conclusions and importance: Biofeedback training is a valuable treatment with no known adverse effects that can be performed as an alternative to patients with ERM with no surgical indication and debilitating symptoms, or as a post-surgery adjuvant treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".