ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Novel Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function Enhances the Prediction of Treatment Outcome and Recurrence in Amblyopia.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of active vision therapy on contrast sensitivity in bilateral amblyopia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Correlation Between Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function and Spherical Equivalent Under Uncorrected and Corrected Conditions in Children with Ametropia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Fixation Stability Deficits in Anisometropic Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Psychophysical assessment of face perception deficits in adults with amblyopia through top-down and bottom-up visual processing pathways.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Using Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling to Enhance Statistical Inference on Contrast Sensitivity.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although effective amblyopia treatments are available, treatment outcome is unpredictable, and the condition recurs in up to 25% of the patients. We aimed to evaluate whether a large-scale quantitative contrast sensitivity function (CSF) data source, coupled with machine learning (ML) algorithms, can predict amblyopia treatment response and recurrence in individuals. Methods: Visual function measures from traditional chart vision acuity (VA) and novel CSF assessments were used as the main predictive variables in the models. Information from 58 potential predictors was extracted to predict treatment response and recurrence. Six ML methods were applied to construct models. The SHapley Additive exPlanations was used to explain the predictions. Results: A total of 2559 consecutive records of 643 patients with amblyopia were eligible for modeling. Combining variables from VA and CSF assessments gave the highest accuracy for treatment response prediction, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.863 and 0.815 for outcome predictions after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Variables from the VA assessment alone predicted the treatment response, with AUC values of 0.723 and 0.675 after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Variables from the CSF assessment gave rise to an AUC of 0.909 for recurrence prediction compared to 0.539 for VA assessment alone, and adding VA variables did not improve predictive performance. The interocular differences in CSF features are significant contributors to recurrence risk. Conclusions: Our models showed CSF data could enhance treatment response prediction and accurately predict amblyopia recurrence, which has the potential to guide amblyopia management by enabling patient-tailored decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.