Control of myopia using diffusion optics spectacle lenses: 4-year results of a multicentre randomised controlled, efficacy and safety study (CYPRESS)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the myopia control efficacy of Diffusion Optics Technology (DOT) spectacle lenses in children over a 4-year treatment period. METHODS: CYPRESS Part 1 (NCT03623074) was a 3-year multicentre, randomised, controlled, double-masked trial comparing two investigational spectacle lens DOT designs (Test 1, Test 2) and standard single vision Control lenses in 256 North American children aged 6-10 years. Children completing Part 1 (n=200) were invited to enrol in CYPRESS Part 2 (NCT04947735) for an additional 1-year period. In Part 2, Test 1 (n=35) and Control groups (n=42) continued with their original lens assignment and the Test 2 group (n=21) were crossed over to Test 1 (DOT 0.2) lenses. The co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in axial length (AL) and cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction (cSER). RESULTS: Test 1 spectacle lenses demonstrated superiority to the Control in both co-primary endpoints: with a difference between means (Test 1-Control) of -0.13 mm for AL (p=0.018) and 0.33 D for cSER (p=0.008) in Part 1 and -0.05 mm for AL (p=0.038) and 0.13 D for cSER (p=0.043) in Part 2. Comparing treatment effects in Part 1 and 2 suggests that COVID-19 public health restrictions negatively impacted treatment efficacy in study years 2 and 3. CONCLUSION: DOT 0.2 spectacle lenses are safe and effective at reducing myopia progression, with additional benefit evident in year 4 of wear. These results support the hypothesis that a mild reduction in retinal contrast can slow myopia progression in young children. The unprecedented disruption in participant schooling and lifestyle during the COVID-19 pandemic may have depressed treatment efficacy in Part 1.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it