MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400425768 · doi:10.18502/jovr.v19i2.12413

Visual and Ocular Characteristics of Anisometropic Children

2024· article· en· W4400425768 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ophthalmic and Vision Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnisometropiaMedicineStrabismusOphthalmologyExotropiaVisual acuityAbsolute deviationRefractive errorOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To compare the demographic and ocular characteristics of patients with low and high levels of anisometropia compared with non-anisometropic individuals. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 1803 individuals (age range, 1 to 30 years) examined at strabismus clinics between January 2019 and December 2020. Of these, 203 subjects had anisometropia (11.2%); 66 cases were excluded due to the history of prior ocular surgery except from strabismus surgery. Finally, data from 137 subjects were analyzed. Spherical or cylindrical differences of 1.50 or 3.00D between the two eyes were defined as low or high anisometropia, respectively, and isometropic subjects (n = 1600) served as controls. Results: No significant difference was observed between cases and controls regarding age (10.25 ± 8.41 vs. 9.2 ± 1.7 years; P = 0.133) and sex (P = 0.051). History of ocular surgery was present in 33% of anisometropic patients versus 0.8 % of isometropic cases. The rate of amblyopia was 83% and 2.3% in anisometropic and non-anisometropic groups, respectively. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was comparable in amblyopic eyes in both study groups, while BCVA of nonamblyopic eyes of non-anisometropic subjects was better (non-anisometropic: 0.01 ± 0.01 vs. anisometropic: 0.06 ± 0.17 LogMAR; P = 0.001). Eye deviation was significantly more prevalent among anisometropic patients (36.5% vs. 3.25%, P < 0.001) and exotropia was the common type of deviation. Anisohyperopia and anisomyopia were the most common refractive errors under low and high anisometropia categories, respectively. Simultaneous manifestation of amblyopia and strabismus were observed in 30.6% of anisometropic cases, while only 0.7% of subjects with isometropia had a similar status (P < 0.001). Conclusion: High rates of amblyopia and strabismus in anisometropic subjects, especially with higher degrees of anomaly, indicate the necessity of early visual acuity and refractive error screening to improve detection and enhance the outcomes of treatment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.439 · 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