Associations between the cause of amblyopia and pre-treatment contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, fixation, and nystagmus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the association between the cause of amblyopia and pre-treatment contrast sensitivity, stereoacuity, fixation and nystagmus. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for 3408 patients with amblyopia who had not yet started amblyopia treatment utilizing a large amblyopia patient database maintained at Zhongshan Ophthalmic Centre. Six amblyogenic factor subtypes were identified: anisometropia, isoametropia, strabismus, anisometropia and strabismus, monocular visual deprivation, and binocular visual deprivation amblyopia. Monocular best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), the contrast sensitivity function (CSF), fixation, and stereopsis were compared between the subtypes before and after propensity score matching (PSM) for age and sex. Results: The two deprivation groups had poorer BCVA and CSF than the other groups. There were no systematic differences in CSF between the non-deprivation groups. Nystagmus was more common in the bilateral amblyopia groups compared to the monocular amblyopia groups. Eccentric fixation was uncommon with the exception of the anisometropia and strabismus group which had an eccentric fixation rate of 20%. Distance stereoacuity measured without monocular cues was absent for almost all patients. The results were consistent when analyzed using PSM. Conclusion: Visual deprivation causes more severe amblyopia than other amblyogenic factors. For non-deprivation amblyopia subtypes, individual differences such as variation in the severity of the amblyogenic factor might be more important in determining pre-treatment vision than whether amblyopia was caused by refractive error, strabismus or both.
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".