Novel Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function Enhances the Prediction of Treatment Outcome and Recurrence in Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Although effective amblyopia treatments are available, treatment outcome is unpredictable, and the condition recurs in up to 25% of the patients. We aimed to evaluate whether a large-scale quantitative contrast sensitivity function (CSF) data source, coupled with machine learning (ML) algorithms, can predict amblyopia treatment response and recurrence in individuals. Methods: Visual function measures from traditional chart vision acuity (VA) and novel CSF assessments were used as the main predictive variables in the models. Information from 58 potential predictors was extracted to predict treatment response and recurrence. Six ML methods were applied to construct models. The SHapley Additive exPlanations was used to explain the predictions. Results: A total of 2559 consecutive records of 643 patients with amblyopia were eligible for modeling. Combining variables from VA and CSF assessments gave the highest accuracy for treatment response prediction, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.863 and 0.815 for outcome predictions after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Variables from the VA assessment alone predicted the treatment response, with AUC values of 0.723 and 0.675 after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Variables from the CSF assessment gave rise to an AUC of 0.909 for recurrence prediction compared to 0.539 for VA assessment alone, and adding VA variables did not improve predictive performance. The interocular differences in CSF features are significant contributors to recurrence risk. Conclusions: Our models showed CSF data could enhance treatment response prediction and accurately predict amblyopia recurrence, which has the potential to guide amblyopia management by enabling patient-tailored decision making.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".