MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396547759 · doi:10.17269/s41997-024-00884-8

Continued care and provision of glasses are necessary to improve visual and academic outcomes in children: Experience from a cluster-randomized controlled trial of school-based vision screening

2024· article· en· W4396547759 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Mayu Nishimura, Agnes Wong, Daphne Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPhysicians' Services Incorporated Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialMedicineOptometryPsychologyMedical educationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a kindergarten vision screening program by randomly assigning schools to receive or not receive vision screening, then following up 1.5 years later. METHODS: Fifty high-needs elementary schools were randomly assigned to participate or not in a vision screening program for children in senior kindergarten (SK; age 5‒6 years). When the children were in Grade 2 (age 6‒7 years), vision screening was conducted at all 50 schools. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, screened and non-screened schools did not differ in the prevalence of suspected amblyopia in Grade 2 (8.6% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.10), nor prevalence of other visual problems such as astigmatism (45.1% vs. 47.1%, p = 0.51). There was also no difference between screened and non-screened schools in academic outcomes such as the proportion of children below grade level in reading (33% vs. 29%) or math (44% vs. 38%) (p = 0.86). However, more children were wearing glasses in screened than in non-screened schools (10.2% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.05), and more children reported their glasses as missing or broken (8.3% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.01), suggesting that SK screening had identified successfully those in need of glasses. Examination of individual results revealed that 72% of children diagnosed and treated for amblyopia in SK no longer had amblyopia in Grade 2. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of amblyopia and other visual problems was not reduced in Grade 2 by our SK vision screening program, perhaps because of poor treatment compliance and high attrition. The results suggest that a single screening intervention is insufficient to reduce visual problems among young children. However, the data from individuals with amblyopia suggest that continuing vision care and access to glasses benefits children, especially children from lower socioeconomic class.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Public HealthSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207