Timing of eye removal influences low-vision quality of life and self-perception of facial appearance in people with one eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The loss of one eye early compared to late in life coincides with critical periods of postnatal visual development and is associated with sensory adaptations which may lead to different psychosocial experiences throughout life. This study investigates the impact of age at enucleation on psychosocial health factors, namely low-vision quality of life, self-perception of facial appearance, anxiety, and depression. METHODS: Twenty-two participants with early or late eye removal and twenty-seven binocular viewing controls completed the Low-Vision Quality of Life questionnaire, Facial Appearance sub-scale of the Negative Physical Self-Scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. RESULTS: Low-vision quality of life was lower for people who had their eye removed late in life compared to binocular viewing controls. Further, within this group, lower self-perception of facial appearance was associated with lower low-vision quality of life. Moreover, experience with binocularity and time since enucleation were not associated with psychosocial health factors. CONCLUSION: Developmental factors rather than experiential factors appear to influence psychosocial health since binocular experience and time since enucleation were not related to any psychosocial factor. These findings suggest that people who have had their eye removed early in life, during the critical periods of visual development may benefit from better psychosocial outcomes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".