Treatment of Rapid Progression of Myopia: Topical Atropine 0.05% and MF60 Contact Lenses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective study evaluates the effectiveness of combining 0.05% atropine with MF60 contact lenses in managing rapid myopia progression in children over one year. The study involved three groups: the treatment group (TG) with 15 children (53% male, average age 12.9 ± 1.04), the MF group (MF) with 12 children (50% male, average age 12.8 ± 0.8) using only MF60 lenses, and the control group (CG) with 14 children (43% male, average age 12.1 ± 0.76). Baseline myopia and axial length (AL) were similar across groups, with the TG, MF, and CG showing −4.02 ± 0.70 D, −4.18 ± 0.89 D, −3.86 ± 0.99 D, and 24.72 ± 0.73 mm, 24.98 ± 0.70 mm, 24.59 ± 1.02 mm, respectively. Prior to the study, all groups exhibited significant myopia and AL progression, with no previous myopia control management. The treatment involved daily 0.05% atropine instillation, the use of MF60 lenses and increased outdoor activity. Biannual cycloplegic refraction and slit lamp evaluations confirmed no adverse reactions. After one year, the TG showed a significant reduction in myopia and AL progression (−0.43 ± 0.46 D, p < 0.01; 0.22 ± 0.23 mm, p < 0.01), whereas the CG showed minimal change (−1.30 ± 0.43 D, p = 0.36; 0.65 ± 0.35 mm, p = 0.533). The MF group also exhibited a notable decrease (−0.74 ± 0.45 D, p < 0.01; 0.36 ± 0.23 mm). Increased outdoor activity during the treatment year did not significantly impact myopia control, suggesting its limited additional effect in this cohort. The study concludes that the combination of 0.05% atropine and peripheral defocus soft contact lenses effectively controls myopia progression in children.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".