MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Objective Measurement of Optical Aberrations in Myopic Eyes

2002· article· en· W2004860824 on OpenAlexaff
MARIE-PIERRE PAQUIN, Habib Hamam, Pierre Simonet

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsAssociation for Canadian StudiesUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmmetropiaSpherical aberrationComa (optics)PupilOpticsAberrations of the eyeRefractive errorMonochromatic colorChromatic aberrationWavefrontOptical aberrationOptometryPhysicsMathematicsOphthalmologyLens (geology)MedicineVisual acuityChromatic scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine whether the degree of myopia affects the optical quality of the retinal image after appropriate correction, monochromatic aberrations of the human eye were measured as a function of the degree of myopia. METHODS: Using a modified Hartmann-Shack method, a population of 27 myopic (up to -9.25 D) and 7 emmetropic optometry students (18-32 years) were objectively evaluated before and after pupil dilation. We then identified for each subject the most influential aberration types, and we calculated the profile of wavefront aberration. To study the behavior of aberration as a function of the degree of myopia, we determined the maximum value of aberration as well as the root mean square (rms) value. RESULTS: It turned out that aberration increases with the refractive error in a quasi-linear relationship for pupil diameters of 5 and 9 mm. This result is valid for both rms and maximum values. CONCLUSIONS: We objectively showed that optical quality decreases as myopia increases and as the pupil gets larger. Coma is more frequent in high myopia, and spherical aberration occurs more frequently for dilated pupils.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.408 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations135
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207