Accuracy and Repeatability of Self‐Measurement of Interpupillary Distance
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 determine the accuracy and repeatability of participants determining their own interpupillary distance (PD). METHODS: Fifty-two healthy and naïve participants were enrolled and analyzed. All participants analyzed were without strabismus. Participants had PD measurements taken by a trained examiner using both a PD rule and an optical pupillometer. Participants then, following online instructions measured their own PD in a mirror, measured a friend's PD and used an online application downloaded to an IPod. Measurements were repeated twice for each type, and the pupillometer results were considered the gold standard (referent). RESULTS: The mean difference between the examiner PD rule measurement and the pupillometer were +0.59 mm [95% limits of agreement (LoA) -0.69 to +1.88], pupillometer-self +0.46 mm (-5.22 to +6.14), pupillometer-friend +2.00 mm (-3.80 to +7.81), and pupillometer-App -3.24 mm (-3.09 to +9.57). Measurements of repeatability using the 95% LoA for the examiner are -0.79 to 0.73 mm for the pupillometer and -1.04 to +1.20 mm for the PD rule. Participants' repeatability for the self-measurement (mirror) was -3.61 to +4.75 mm, employing a friend was -3.74 to +3.94 mm, and using the IPod application was -6.63 to +6.51 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' ability to measure their own PD using techniques and applications available via the Internet result in poor accuracy and poor repeatability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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