Accuracy and Utility of Self-report of Refractive Error
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IMPORTANCE: Large-scale generic studies offer detailed information on potential risk factors for refractive error across the life course, but ophthalmic examination in such cases to determine the refractive error phenotype is challenging and costly. Thus, refractive status is commonly assigned using questionnaires. In a population survey, often only a few condition-specific self-reported questions can be included, so the questions used must be effective in ruling in those who have the trait of interest and ruling out those who do not. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of identification of refractive status using self-reported age at and/or reason for first use of glasses or contact lenses (optical correction). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The UK Biobank study, a cross-sectional epidemiologic study, included 117 278 participants aged 40 to 69 years in 6 regional centers in England and Wales. Data for the present study were assessed from June 2009 to July 2010. Patients underwent autorefraction measurement. Spherical equivalent in the more extreme eye was used to categorize myopia (-1.00 diopter [D] or more extreme) and hypermetropia (+1.00 D or more extreme). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of the reason for optical correction were assessed using autorefraction as the gold standard. Receiver operating characteristic curves assessed the accuracy of self-reported age at first use of optical correction and incremental improvement with addition of the reason. RESULTS: Of the 95 240 participants who reported using optical correction (55.6% female; mean [SD] age, 57.7 [7.5] years), 92 121 (96.7%) provided their age at first use and 93 156 (97.8%) provided the reason. For myopia, sensitivity of the reason for optical correction was 89.1% (95% CI, 88.7%-89.4%), specificity was 83.7% (95% CI, 83.4%-84.0%), and positive and negative predictive values were 72.7% (95% CI, 72.2%-73.1%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 93.8%-94.2%), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.829 (95% CI, 0.826-0.831) and improved to 0.928 (95% CI, 0.926-0.930) with combined information. By contrast, self-report of the reason for optical correction of hypermetropia had low sensitivity (38.1%; 95% CI, 37.6%-38.6%), and the area under the curve with combined information was 0.713 (95% CI, 0.709-0.716). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In combination, self-report of the reason for and age at first use of optical correction are accurate in identifying myopia. These findings indicate an agreed set of questions could be implemented effectively in large-scale generic population-based studies to increase opportunities for integrated research on refractive error leading to development of novel prevention or treatment strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle