Evaluation of Lag of Accommodation with Full-Field Diffusion Optics Technology™ (DOT) Contrast Management Spectacle Lenses in Emmetropic Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: (DOT) spectacle lenses, designed to modulate retinal contrast to control myopia progression. Patients and Methods: This was a single-visit, prospective, randomized, subject-masked study of emmetropes (ametropes ±1.00D or less in each meridian) with no history of myopia control treatment. Unaided logMAR visual acuity was measured, and ocular dominance was determined using the sighting method. In a randomized order, participants wore plano full-field contrast management (DOT) spectacles (no clear central aperture) or control spectacles (standard single vision spectacle lenses). Each participant was given 5 minutes for adaptation to the respective lenses before open field autorefraction measurements were taken at 6 meters and 40 cm. Ten measurements were taken for each eye. Data were evaluated from the right eye and the dominant eye separately. Results: A total of 30 participants (20 females and 10 males) with a mean age of 10.4 ± 2.8 (7 to 17) years completed the study. There was no significant difference in right eye mean LOA with contrast management spectacles 0.57 ± 0.39D versus control spectacles 0.62 ± 0.34D; Wilcoxon test, p = 0.37. For dominant eyes, LOA values were 0.60 ± 0.40D and 0.68 ± 0.33D with contrast management spectacles and control spectacles, respectively (p = 0.14). Additionally, no significant difference was observed in mean LOA between males and females or between age groups (7-11 years vs 12-17 years) for either right or dominant eyes with contrast management or control spectacles (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: Full-field contrast management spectacle lenses had no significant effect on LOA compared to standard single vision spectacle lenses, indicating no differential impact on accommodative response over the short period of lens wear tested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".