MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validity of Pachymetric Measurements by Manipulating the Acoustic Factor of Orbscan II

2006· article· en· W2011718472 on OpenAlexaff
Fenghe Lu, Trefford Simpson, Desmond Fonn, Luigina Sorbara, Lyndon Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the validity of pachymetric measurements by examining the constancy of the acoustic factor (AF) of the Orbscan II (Orbtek, Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, NY) after overnight rigid gas-permeable (RGP) contact lens wear. METHODS: Twenty participants wore CRT (Paragon Vision Sciences, Mesa, AZ) HDS 100 contact lenses on one eye and control lenses on the contralateral eye for one night while sleeping. Another 24 participants wore CRT lenses on both eyes for one night. Central corneal thickness was measured using optical coherence tomography and Orbscan II on the night before lens use, immediately after lens removal on the following morning, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 hours later. By using optical coherence tomography as a reference, the adjusted AF was calculated by using a least squares method over time. RESULTS: The adjusted AF depended on the corneal thickness in normally hydrated corneas. The adjusted AF and the percentage change of the adjusted AF varied before and after overnight lens wear. There was a strong and significant correlation between the corneal swelling and the percentage change of the adjusted AF (all r at least 0.91, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted AF is a variable, not a constant. The AF is a function of the corneal thickness and its alteration with, for example, corneal swelling. The validity of the adjusted Orbscan II pachymetric measures using a single AF is untenable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEye & Contact Lens Science & Clinical PracticeSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207