Individual and combined confrontation visual field tests performed poorly as a screen for visual field abnormalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club19 October 2010Individual and combined confrontation visual field tests performed poorly as a screen for visual field abnormalitiesBarbara Connolly, MD, Wieslaw Oczkowski, MDBarbara Connolly, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (B.C., W.O.), Wieslaw Oczkowski, MDMcMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (B.C., W.O.)Author, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-8-201010190-02011 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationKerr NM, Chew SS, Eady EK, Gamble GD, Danesh-Meyer HV. Diagnostic accuracy of confrontation visual field tests. Neurology. 2010;74:1184-90. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20385890Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Emergency Med: Hospitalists: Neurology: References1 Trobe JD, Acosta PC, Krischer JP, Trick GL. Confrontation visual field techniques in the detection of anterior visual pathway lesions. Ann Neurol. 1981;10:28-34. [PMID: 7271230] Google Scholar2 Johnson LN, Baloh FG. The accuracy of confrontation visual field test in comparison with automated perimetry. J Natl Med Assoc. 1991;83:895-8. [PMID: 1800764] Google Scholar3 Pandit RJ, Gales K, Griffiths PG. Effectiveness of testing visual fields by confrontation [Letter]. Lancet. 2001;358:1339-40. [PMID: 11684217] Google Scholar4 Anderson NE, Mason DF, Fink JN, et al. Detection of focal cerebral hemisphere lesions using the neurological examination. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76:545-9. [PMID: 15774443] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (B.C., W.O.)This article was published at Annals.org on 5 October 2010. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited by11 Neurologisch onderzoek 19 October 2010Volume 153, Issue 8Page: JC4-11KeywordsComputersGlaucomaHospitalistsLesionsNeurologyOptic nervePrimary careSpecificityVisual acuity ePublished: 19 October 2010 Issue Published: 19 October 2010 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2010 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".