Reading with low vision: the impact of research on clinical management*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe past 40-years has seen a great expansion in low‐vision research, which has changed low‐vision teaching and our clinical management of people with low vision. Australian optometrists have contributed significantly to this research and the development of multidisciplinary low‐vision services. This paper reviews the research that has shaped our clinical assessment and patient management for reading by adults with low vision. The major improvements in clinical assessment of low vision for reading were brought about by the improvements in distance and near visual acuity measurements during the 1970s and research during the 1980s and 1990s showing the factors affecting the reading rate. These changes, together with a different method for representing the magnification provided by optical and electronic systems, allows a scientific, logical and practical method for prescribing magnification. An illustration of the step‐by‐step approach for prescribing magnification for low‐vision reading that is easy to apply in any clinical practice is included.Key words: age‐related macular degenerationlow visionreadingvisual acuity This article is part of the following collections: Women Research Pioneers in Australian Optometry Abbreviated versions of this paper were presented at both Queensland Vision 2007, the annual conference of Optometrists Association Australia, Queensland and Northern Territory Division (Noel Verney Memorial Lecture) and Vision 2008, the 9th International Conference on Low Vision, Montreal, Canada.Abbreviated versions of this paper were presented at both Queensland Vision 2007, the annual conference of Optometrists Association Australia, Queensland and Northern Territory Division (Noel Verney Memorial Lecture) and Vision 2008, the 9th International Conference on Low Vision, Montreal, Canada.NotesAbbreviated versions of this paper were presented at both Queensland Vision 2007, the annual conference of Optometrists Association Australia, Queensland and Northern Territory Division (Noel Verney Memorial Lecture) and Vision 2008, the 9th International Conference on Low Vision, Montreal, Canada.a. The M print size notation refers to the distance in metres, at which the overall size of the lower case letters subtends a visual angle of five minutes of arc.b. Point measurement refers to the overall dimension of the type body from the top of the ascending letters to the bottom of the descending letters, with the lower case letters being half the point size; 1 point = 1/72 inch (0.35 mm). Point sizes are commonly preceded by N, for example, N8 (8 point print), which was first used by LawCitation24 simply to indicate 'near'.c. A standard word is six characters.d. If the object is held at the focal length of a simple plus lens, only field of view varies with eye–lens distance. The largest field of view is given when the lens is in the spectacle plane.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it