Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Animal models in myopia research

Schaeffel, Frank, Feldkaemper, Marita·2015·Clinical and Experimental Optometry

Abstract

Our current understanding of the development of refractive errors, in particular myopia, would be substantially limited had Wiesel and Raviola not discovered by accident that monkeys develop axial myopia as a result of deprivation of form vision. Similarly, if Josh Wallman and colleagues had not found that simple plastic goggles attached to the chicken eye generate large amounts of myopia, the chicken model would perhaps not have become such an important animal model. Contrary to previous assumptions about the mechanisms of myopia, these animal models suggested that eye growth is visually controlled locally by the retina, that an afferent connection to the brain is not essential and that emmetropisation uses more sophisticated cues than just the magnitude of retinal blur. While animal models have shown that the retina can determine the sign of defocus, the underlying mechanism is still not entirely clear. Animal models have also provided knowledge about the biochemical nature of the signal cascade converting the output of retinal image processing to changes in choroidal thickness and scleral growth; however, a critical question was, and still is, can the results from animal models be applied to myopia in children? While the basic findings from chickens appear applicable to monkeys, some fundamental questions remain. If eye growth is guided by visual feedback, why is myopic development not self-limiting? Why does undercorrection not arrest myopic progression even though positive lenses induce myopic defocus, which leads to the development of hyperopia in emmetropic animals? Why do some spectacle or contact lens designs reduce myopic progression and others not? It appears that some major differences exist between animals reared with imposed defocus and children treated with various optical corrections, although without the basic knowledge obtained from animal models, we would be lost in an abundance of untestable hypotheses concerning human myopia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cxo.12312

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Schaeffel, F., & Feldkaemper, M.
Venue
Clinical and Experimental Optometry
Published
2015-11-01
Volume
98
Issue
6
Pages
507-517
ISSN
  • 0816-4622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1444-0938
OpenAlex
W2394973123
Cited by
188
References
2
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Animal models in myopia research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cxo.12312
The paper
Schaeffel, F., & Feldkaemper, M. (2015). Animal models in myopia research. Clinical and Experimental Optometry. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12312

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.