Fixation-Free Assessment of the Hirschberg Ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a novel methodology by which to measure the Hirschberg ratio (HR) in infants. The methodology does not require fixation on specific points, and measurements are made while infants look naturally at a display. METHODS: The HR is calculated automatically from measurements of the direction of the optical axis, the position of the pupil center, and corneal reflexes in video images from an advanced two-camera eye-tracking system. The performance of the novel fixation-free procedure (FFP) was evaluated in 43 adults by measuring the average difference and the 95% limits of agreement with the standard fixation-based procedure (FBP). Repeatability of the HR measurements was evaluated by assessing the 95% limits of agreement between two independent measurements. Performance of the FFP was also evaluated in five infants. RESULTS: In adults, the average HR was 12.89 +/- 1.22 degrees/mm for FFP and 12.81 +/- 1.22 degrees/mm for FBP. FFP and FBP measurements were highly correlated (r = 0.95; P < 0.001). The 95% limits of agreement between FFP and FBP were +/-0.86 degrees/mm. The 95% limits of agreement of repeated measurements were +/-0.66 degrees/mm for FFP and +/-0.77 degrees/mm for FBP. In infants, the 95% limits of agreement of repeated measurements by FFP were +/-0.63 degrees/mm. CONCLUSIONS: In adults, the FFP provides accurate measurements of the HR that are in excellent agreement with measurements by FBP. In infants, measurements of HR by FFP show the same repeatability and 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".