Simulation of longitudinal threshold visual field data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe and evaluate a computer model that simulates longitudinal visual field data. METHODS: A computer model was designed using factors that influence thresholds of normal and glaucomatous visual fields. The simulation model was used to quantify the effects of fluctuation on the outcomes of pointwise linear regression by comparison with simulated gold standard data with no variability. RESULTS: Serial sets of 10 stable and 10 progressive visual fields with different fluctuation levels were generated by simulation and were analyzed using pointwise linear regression. Regression outcome measures used were slopes of -1 dB/year or worse and slopes of -1 dB/year or worse that were also statistically significant. In stable visual fields, the number of locations with regression slopes worse than -1 dB/year increased with fluctuation and defect size and was inversely related to the number of fields. The number of locations with statistically significant slopes remained low and appeared unaffected by these variables. In progressive visual fields, analysis of a small number of visual field test results (<8) overestimated the number of locations with regression slopes worse than -1 dB/year and underestimated the number of locations with statistically significant slopes. CONCLUSIONS: Computer simulation may be used to provide a gold standard outcome that permits evaluation of statistical tools for monitoring progressive glaucomatous visual field loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".