Telemedicine‐friendly, portable tonometers: an evaluation for intraocular pressure screening
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
PURPOSE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP) readings from two portable, telemedicine-friendly tonometers for suitability in glaucoma screening. METHODS: 213 eyes of 107 consenting patients attending an eye clinic were tested with an I-care tonometer and a Pulsair-Easy Eye puff-air tonometer. Gold standard IOP was measured with a Goldmann applanation tonometer (GAT). Effect of central corneal thickness, anterior chamber depth and refractive errors on IOP measurements were also analysed. RESULTS: The mean difference of IOP by GAT and both the portable tonometers was +/- 2.2 mmHg. The analysis indicates minimal difference between IOP readings of both the portable tonometers. The mean difference between two consecutive readings by I-care was 0.01 mmHg. Using 21 mmHg as a threshold for suspected glaucoma, both the portable digital tonometers reported a sensitivity of 38% and specificity of >95%. In the subjects studied, central corneal thickness had statistically significant influence on IOP measurements while refractive errors and anterior chamber depth had no significant influence on IOP measurements with any tonometry. CONCLUSION: The IOP readings by both portable tonometers are comparable and were within clinically acceptable range from GAT. These portable tonometers are useful tools for IOP screening.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it