Amblyopic binocular imbalance quantified by the dichoptic contrast ordering test and dichoptic letters test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In amblyopia, abnormal binocular interactions lead to an overwhelming dominance of one eye. One mechanism implied in this imbalance is the suppression between the inputs from the two eyes. This interocular suppression involves two components: an overlay suppression and a surround suppression. Here, we propose a new method for measuring surround suppression which has been demonstrated in both strabismic and anisometropic amblyopes, based on a novel interocular contrast scaling task, suitable for use as a clinical tool. We compare the results obtained with this method against those from another method designed to measure overlay suppression: the Dichoptic Letter Test. We find a strong correlation between the results obtained with the two methods. Additionally, we observe strong correlations between the imbalance measured with the two tests and visual acuity and stereopsis. Altogether this suggests that amblyopic suppression is spatially broad and has direct relevance in global vision. So our new method is a relevant, clinically suitable tool to track the disease state in amblyopia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".