The Repeatability of Discrete and Continuous Anterior Segment Grading Scales
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 investigate the repeatability of three anterior segment clinical grading scales: 1) verbal descriptors scale (VDS), 2) photographic matching scale (PS), and 3) continuous matching scale (CS). METHODS: Five optometrists graded 30 slides each of 3-9-o'clock staining, bulbar redness, and palpebral conjunctival roughness twice, separated by at least a day. VDS and PS were five-point scales (0-4) with half grades permitted. The CS was a 5-second, 240-frame video movie generated using morphing software. PS and CS grading was done with references presented on a computer screen. RESULTS: Averaged across observers, the test-retest intraclass correlation, correlation coefficient of concordance, and Pearson's r ranged from 0.95 to 0.99 (all p < 0.001). Coefficients of repeatability using CS to grade all three ocular conditions ranged between 0.31 and 0.49. The corresponding PS and VDS coefficients of repeatability ranged between 0.37 and 0.49; PS generally had better repeatability than VDS. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the clinical grading scales was reliable. The coefficients of repeatability showed that bulbar redness and palpebral conjunctival roughness were graded with higher precision using CS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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