Associations between glaucomatous visual field loss and participation in activities of daily living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the association between visual field loss and participation in daily activities in individuals with glaucoma. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients were recruited from the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. Visual fields were assessed using the Esterman binocular visual field tests and participation in daily activities was assessed using the Impact of Vision Impairment (IVI) questionnaire. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were also measured. RESULTS: There was no independent relationship between visual field loss and IVI score (r = -0.20; P = 0.09), except for the mobility domain (r = 0.25; P = 0.03). Mobility was the most affected domain of the IVI (mean = 1.2). Over a quarter of the patients reported experiencing moderate to severe restriction with mobility activities despite relatively minor binocular field loss. CONCLUSION: Mobility is the area in which glaucoma patients encounter difficulties even when the visual field and visual acuity are relatively good. Questions related to mobility could be asked to identify those patients who need rehabilitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".