MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009692915

Evaluation of Lag of Accommodation with Full-Field Diffusion Optics Technology™ (DOT) Contrast Management Spectacle Lenses in Emmetropic Children

2024· article· en· W7009692915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw and Political Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmmetropiaAccommodationContrast (vision)Ocular dominanceRefractive errorVisual acuity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asiya Jabeen,1 Doerte Luensmann,1 Jill Woods,1 Jennifer S Hill,2 Lyndon Jones1 1Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; 2SightGlass Vision, Inc, Palo Alto, CA, USACorrespondence: Asiya Jabeen, Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), School of Optometry & Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, Tel +1 519-888-5467, Ext. 36210, Fax +1 519-888-4303, Email ajabeen@uwaterloo.caPurpose: To evaluate the impact on the lag of accommodation (LOA) in emmetropic children after short-term wear of full-field Diffusion Optics TechnologyTM (DOT) spectacle lenses, designed to modulate retinal contrast to control myopia progression.Patients and Methods: This was a single-visit, prospective, randomized, subject-masked study of emmetropes (ametropes ± 1.00D or less in each meridian) with no history of myopia control treatment. Unaided logMAR visual acuity was measured, and ocular dominance was determined using the sighting method. In a randomized order, participants wore plano full-field contrast management (DOT) spectacles (no clear central aperture) or control spectacles (standard single vision spectacle lenses). Each participant was given 5 minutes for adaptation to the respective lenses before open field autorefraction measurements were taken at 6 meters and 40 cm. Ten measurements were taken for each eye. Data were evaluated from the right eye and the dominant eye separately.Results: A total of 30 participants (20 females and 10 males) with a mean age of 10.4 ± 2.8 (7 to 17) years completed the study. There was no significant difference in right eye mean LOA with contrast management spectacles 0.57 ± 0.39D versus control spectacles 0.62 ± 0.34D; Wilcoxon test, p = 0.37. For dominant eyes, LOA values were 0.60 ± 0.40D and 0.68 ± 0.33D with contrast management spectacles and control spectacles, respectively (p = 0.14). Additionally, no significant difference was observed in mean LOA between males and females or between age groups (7– 11 years vs 12– 17 years) for either right or dominant eyes with contrast management or control spectacles (all p > 0.05).Conclusion: Full-field contrast management spectacle lenses had no significant effect on LOA compared to standard single vision spectacle lenses, indicating no differential impact on accommodative response over the short period of lens wear tested.Keywords: myopia, children, accommodation, contrast, spectacles, Diffusion Optics Technology, DOT, contrast management optics

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.375 · 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