Assessment of Factors Affecting the Difference in Intraocular Pressure Measurements Between Dynamic Contour Tonometry and Goldmann Applanation Tonometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if the difference in intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements between dynamic contour tonometry (DCT) and Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) is correlated with axial length (AL), and to assess the possible influence of age, sex, central corneal thickness (CCT), corneal hysteresis (CH), ocular pulse amplitude (OPA), and glaucoma status on the difference in IOP measurements between the 2 instruments (ΔIOP=DCTIOP- GATIOP). METHODS: Two hundred sixty-oneparticipants (509 eyes) in these 4 groups were included: 53 normal individuals (N; 106 eyes), 112 glaucoma patients (OAG; 212 eyes), 52 glaucoma suspects (GS; 103 eyes), and 44 patients with ocular hypertension (OHT; 88 eyes). The patients who had had an incisional ocular surgery were excluded. All participants underwent IOP evaluation with DCT and GAT and AL, CCT, and CH measurements. The influence of age, sex, AL, CCT, CH, OPA, and glaucoma diagnostic status on ΔIOP was evaluated using correlation analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Right (OD) and left eyes (OS) were analyzed separately. RESULTS: ΔIOP was higher in eyes with longer axial lengths (OD: r=0.142, P=0.02; OS: r=0.233, P<0.001). ΔIOP also correlated with CH (OD: r=-0. 127, P=0.04; OS: r=-0.169, P=0.01), in which the ΔIOP increased as CH decreased (corresponding to less rigid corneas). OPA also correlated negatively with ΔIOP, but the correlation was only statistically significant in left eye (OD: r=-0.112, P=0.08; OS: r=-0.124, P=0.05). Age, CCT, sex, and diagnostic status did not influence ΔIOP significantly. CONCLUSIONS: GAT underestimated IOP more compared with DCT in patients with longer axial length and in patients with lower corneal hysteresis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".