ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Visual System Alterations for Identifying Teacher-Reported Academic Difficulties in Schoolchildren: A Machine Learning Analysis.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEfficient visual processing is relevant for reading, writing, and sustained attention in schoolchildren. However, the relative discriminative value of different visual domains for identifying teacher-reported academic difficulties remains unclear. This study evaluated five visual system alteration domains for identifying teacher-reported academic difficulties using machine learning models.
methodsAn observational analytical study was conducted in 581 primary schoolchildren. After complete-case analysis, 506 participants were included in the machine-learning analyses. Academic functioning was rated by teachers using a 1-5 ordinal scale and dichotomized as a pragmatic school-based indicator of teacher-reported academic difficulties. Five predictor groups were analyzed: DIVE-based oculomotor function, clinical oculomotor assessment, accommodative system, vergence system, and axial length. Five classifiers were evaluated using stratified 5-fold cross-validation combined with model-complexity penalization through hyperparameter optimization.
resultsThe accommodative system showed the highest cross-validated performance (XGBoost: accuracy 0.952 ± 0.021; macro-F1 0.919 ± 0.028), followed by clinically assessed and instrumentally assessed oculomotor predictors. Oculomotor alterations also showed strong performance, whereas vergence alterations showed high specificity but very low sensitivity, and abnormal axial length showed limited discriminative performance.
conclusionsFunctional visual domains, particularly accommodation and oculomotor control, showed stronger cross-validated classification performance than vergence or axial-length variables. These findings are exploratory and require external validation cohorts, standardized academic outcomes, and future combined-domain modeling before clinical or educational implementation.
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.