Parental Ability to Detect Visual or Ocular Anomalies in Their Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Children typically depend on their parents to seek eyecare. Visual and ocular disorders can be challenging for parents to identify with the absence of apparent symptoms. This may hinder timely clinical diagnosis for children who need treatment. Parental awareness regarding common paediatric eye and vision anomalies along with eye care seeking behaviour has been reported, but there is a lack of studies that demonstrate parental ability to identify a presenting eye or vision disorder in their own children. AIM: This study aimed to determine parental ability to recognise a significant eye problem in their children. METHODS: The study population consisted of beneficiaries of Jaber Al Ahmad Armed Forces Hospital in Kuwait. Structured history and symptoms were taken from parents and comprehensive eye examinations were conducted for their children. Parental responses were compared to the eye test results to attain the study purpose. RESULTS: A total of 188 parental interviews and 188 eye test results data were collected from 137 parents and their children. Only a few parents (18.1%) were able to detect significant visual or ocular anomalies in their children. One-third of the parents (33%) were under the assumption that the visual or ocular status of their children was within the norm, while the eye test results showed that the children had clinically significant issues. Overall, 41.5% of the entire group of parents were wrong in their assumption about the children’s visual or ocular status. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that a large proportion of parents may not be able to identify a presenting eye disorder in their children. This emphasises the significance of routine eye examinations at an early age.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".