MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404129439 · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2024.108503

Towards a principled and efficacious approach to the treatment of amblyopia. A review

2024· review· en· W4404129439 on OpenAlexaff
Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueVision Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is currently a diverse array of treatment for amblyopia. In addition to the traditional penalization therapy, which has been used for over 200 years, there are not only more active treatments to recover the monocular visual loss of the amblyopic eye involving both behavioral (visual training) as well as non-invasive brain stimulation but also a variety of methods designed specifically to restore binocular function. Our understanding of visual function in general and of the etiology of the amblyopic loss in particular has progressed a great deal over the last 50 years and it is now time to take a more principled approach to how we treat, when we treat and why we treat.

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 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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVision ResearchSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207