Efficacy of the DRL orthokeratology lens in slowing axial elongation in French children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aims to assess and compare the impact of Orthokeratology Double Reservoir Lens (DRL) versus Single Vision Lenses (SVL) on axial elongation and anterior chamber biometric parameters in myopic children over a 6- and 12-month treatment period in France. Methods A retrospective study involving 48 patients aged 7 to 17 years, who underwent either orthokeratology treatment or single-vision spectacle correction, was conducted. Changes in refractive error, axial length, and anterior chamber depth were examined. Results Twenty-five patients comprised the Orthokeratology (OK) group, while twenty-three were in the control group (single-vision spectacle group). Significant increases in mean axial length were observed over time in both the control (0.12 ± 0.13 mm and 0.20 ± 0.17 mm after 6 and 12 months, respectively; F (2,28.9) = 27.68, p < 0.001) and OK groups (0.02 ± 0.07 mm and 0.06 ± 0.13 mm after 6 and 12 months, respectively; F (2,29.1) = 5.30, p = 0.023). No statistically significant differences in axial length were found between male and female children (p > 0.620). Age-specific analysis revealed no significant axial elongation after 12 months in the 14–17 years group in the OK group. Anterior biometric data analysis at 6 and 12 months showed statistical significance only for the DRL group. Conclusion Orthokeratology resulted in an 86 and 70% reduction in axial elongation after 6 and 12 months of lens wear, respectively, compared to the single-vision spectacles group. Myopia progression was more pronounced in younger children, underscoring the importance of initiating myopia control strategies at early ages.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".