MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410052731 · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2025.108612

Functional consequences of amblyopia and its impact on health-related quality of life

2025· review· en· W4410052731 on OpenAlexafffund
Krista R. Kelly, Yi Pang, Benjamin Thompson, Ewa Niechwiej‐Szwedo, Carolyn Drews‐Botsch, Ann Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueVision Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInnovation and Technology Commission
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyOptometryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Amblyopia has lasting functional consequences beyond impaired visual acuity. • Amblyopia can create burden on patients, families, and healthcare systems. • Recognizing amblyopia’s impact will improve diagnoses and targeted intervention. Amblyopia (lazy eye) is the most common cause of monocular vision loss, affecting up to 4% of children and often persisting into adulthood. While treating the visual acuity deficit is often the focus of treatment, there is a pressing need for researchers, educators, and clinicians to understand the effects of amblyopia that extend beyond visual acuity. This review article highlights recent advances in understanding the impact of amblyopia on everyday life functioning. Amblyopia can significantly interfere with contrast sensitivity, attention, reading, eye-hand coordination, body composition, physical activity, and health-related quality of life. A deeper understanding of the functional consequences of amblyopia can be applied to patient management and inform amblyopia treatment, as well as support research into more effective interventions to prevent or rehabilitate deficits that can hinder children’s physical, social, and academic success.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.420
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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