Comparison between Live and Photographed Slit Lamp Grading of Corneal Staining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare live and photographic (still) grades of corneal staining of the same eyes and the repeatability of grading between two investigators. METHODS: Thirty patients were recruited to participate in a contact lens study, and their level of corneal staining was graded by two investigators in situ (live images), using slit lamp biomicroscopy. Digital still images of the corneal staining were also captured during the study visits. An independent observer selected 105 of the still images graded by investigator 1 and another 105 images graded by investigator 2 and presented them to the original investigator in a random order, on three separate occasions. Grading was performed at the time of the live grading and the three still image sessions, using the Centre for Contact Lens Research corneal staining scale that combines grades of both extent and type to provide an overall "global staining score" from 0 to 10,000 for corneal staining. A comparison was made between live and still grades as well as the intrainvestigator repeatability for the multiple grading of the still images. RESULTS: The mean (±SD) of corneal staining grades recorded for the same eyes examined live and then later on three occasions was 1795 (±1083) and 714 (±974), respectively, for participants examined by investigator 1 (p < 0.001) and 1854 (±1075) and 461 (±411) for those examined by investigator 2 (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference over the three repeated still grading sessions for each investigator (p < 0.001), although there was a high degree of consistency among the three still grading sessions for each of the investigators: the intraclass correlation for investigator 1 was 0.91 (confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.93) and that for investigator 2 was 0.82 (confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.87). DISCUSSION: Digital still image grading of corneal staining significantly underrepresented the amount of corneal staining observed through a slit lamp. Clinical investigators graded corneal staining with a high degree of consistency.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".