QOL-46. EFFECTIVENESS OF A TELEREHABILITATION PROGRAM TO IMPROVE VISUAL PERCEPTION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH HEMIANOPIA CONSECUTIVE TO A BRAIN TUMOUR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Brain tumours in children often lead to visual impairment, which presents as a significant morbidity for long-term survivors. A recent Children Cancer Survivor Study showed that 22.5% of the patients with astroglial tumours had visual impairment five years after the diagnosis. In the pediatric population with hemianopia, there are no standardized protocols for managing vision loss. This study evaluated a 6-week home-based telerehabilitation program (home-based 3D-MOT-IVR) on visual perception in children with hemianopia consecutive to a brain tumour. METHODS This phase 2a, open-labelled, non-randomized, single-arm study included ten patients aged 12-18 years old with hemianopia consecutive to a pediatric brain tumour. Patients followed a 6-week home-based 3D-MOT-IVR with remote control of the device from the UHN laboratory. Visual assessments were performed at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 weeks, with follow-ups at 1 and 6 months to check the visual field, contrast sensitivity and reading speed. RESULTS The home-based 3D-MOT-IVR intervention proved feasible and safe, with no reported adverse events. All participants completed the prescribed stimulations, pre- and post-intervention assessment points, and 90% completed the follow-ups. Remarkably, the outcomes revealed significant improvements post-intervention: 50% of participants showed enhanced visual perception in their blind field, while 70% exhibited increased reading speed. Importantly, these positive effects were sustained at the 6-month follow-up. A robust correlation emerged between 3D-MOT-IVR performance and improved visual perception in the blind field, emphasizing the intervention’s effectiveness. CONCLUSION These promising results lay a strong foundation for a larger randomized controlled trial, offering hope for a meaningful breakthrough in visual rehabilitation for this vulnerable population. Further studies are being developed to confirm these results and identify the most appropriate schedules to optimize visual outcomes (such as duration and repetition of these programs).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".