An Evaluation of Binocular and Accommodative Function as Predictors of Myopia Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractIntroductionThis study was designed to evaluate whether common tests of binocular and accommodative function can predict myopia progression in children. The study explored lesser-studied clinical measures beyond accommodative lag and phoria. MethodsThis retrospective cohort study reviewed patients from age 5 years 0 months up to but not including the 17th birthday in an urban academic U.S. clinic. We measured binocular and accommodative functions in a sample of 410 patients with normal corrected visual acuity. The functions were correlated to change in cycloplegic refraction over time.ResultsThe mean observation period was 2.59 ± 0.70 years. Pearson’s correlation coefficients between binocular/accommodative measures and refractive change were weak (r = -0.02 to 0.03). Excluding patients with constant strabismus and stratifying by phoria type (exodeviation or esodeviation), along with fusional vergence metrics, failed to make any meaningful improvements (r = -0.10 to 0.07). Even among patients at high-risk for myopia and myopia progression (baseline refraction ≤ 0.75D), correlations remained weak (r = -0.12 to 0.06). ConclusionIn this clinic sample, common tests of binocular vision and accommodation were independent of change in refractive error and did not discriminate future myopia conversion or progression.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".