Video Diversion During Fundoscopic Examination in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fundoscopy is an important aspect of a neurological examination but can be challenging in uncooperative children. This study explored whether viewing a video during examination improves the success, duration, and ease of pediatric fundoscopy. This single-practitioner, randomized study involved 60 patients aged 1 to 8 years. Patients were randomized (by eye examined) to the treatment group (video-assisted) or control group (no video). A caregiver and the practitioner ranked the level of difficulty of each examination. There was a 28% improvement in the success rate of visualizing the optic disc (P < .001). Further analysis showed a 48% improvement in the success rate in children aged 1 to 4 years (P < .001) but no difference in children aged 5 to 8 years (P = .23). Time needed to visualize the optic disc also improved (Δ16.3 s, P < .001). Improvement in the ease of examination (P < .001) was noted by both the practitioner and caregiver. This simple adjunct has the potential to improve the efficacy of this aspect of the pediatric neurological examination.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".