Repeatability and Intercorrelations of Standard Vision Tests as a Function of Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed repeatability and intercorrelations of five standard vision tests in subjects with normal vision. METHODS: Seventy-eight subjects (aged 21 to 68 years) completed five measurements each of high- and low-contrast visual acuity, near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson chart). RESULTS: Except for correlations between high- and low-contrast visual acuity (r = 0.78), intercorrelations between tests were low to moderate (r < 0.5). For each measure, variability for the group was about one line on the chart (one triplet for the Pelli-Robson chart) and the minimum variability for an individual subject was about one third of this. On average, 1 to 2 lines can be expected to be lost over the normal lifespan on each test. Variability in responses did not increase significantly with age for any test. CONCLUSIONS: The criterion for judging change on commonly used clinical vision tests is about one line for subjects over a wide age range.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".