Abnormal Visual Contrast Acuity in Parkinson's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low-contrast vision is thought to be reduced in Parkinson's disease (PD). This may have a direct impact on quality of life such as driving, using tools, finding objects, and mobility in low-light condition. Low-contrast letter acuity testing has been successful in assessing low-contrast vision in multiple sclerosis. We report the use of a new iPad application to measure low-contrast acuity in patients with PD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate low- and high-contrast letter acuity in PD patients and controls using a variable contrast acuity eye chart developed for the Apple iPad. METHODS: Thirty-two PD and 71 control subjects were studied. Subjects viewed the Variable Contrast Acuity Chart on an iPad with both eyes open at two distances (40 cm and 2 m) and at high contrast (black and white visual acuity) and 2.5% low contrast. Acuity scores for the two groups were compared. RESULTS: PD patients had significantly lower scores (indicating worse vision) for 2.5% low contrast at both distances and for high contrast at 2 m (p < 0.003) compared to controls. No significant difference was found between the two groups for high contrast at 40 cm (p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Parkinson's disease patients have reduced low and high contrast acuity compared to controls. An iPad app, as used in this study, could serve as a quick screening tool to complement more formal testing of patients with PD and other neurologic disorders.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".