MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impact of Artificial Light Scatter on Scanning Laser Tomography

2006· article· en· W2027257126 on OpenAlexafffund
MARK A. BURKE, CHATEN J. KHANNA, Angela Miller, Subha T. Venkataraman, Chris Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeidelberg Engineering
KeywordsGlaucomaOphthalmologyNerve fiber layerMaterials scienceOptic nerveMedicineBiomedical engineeringOpen angle glaucomaOpticsNuclear medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The impact of cataract (which frequently occurs alongside glaucoma) on scanning laser tomography (SLT) is poorly understood. The aim of this pilot study was to determine the impact of artificial light scatter on SLT estimates of optic nerve head (ONH) topography. METHODS: The sample comprised 10 healthy, young subjects of mean age 23.5 years. One eye of each subject was randomly selected. Cells filled with increasing concentrations of 0.50-microm diameter polystyrene microspheres were prepared. The cells were mounted in front of the objective lens of the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) II and were tilted at an angle of 20 degrees to eradicate any surface reflections. Three sets of ONH scans were initially acquired without any light scatter cell in place and then three further sets were acquired for each of four different concentrations of microspheres in a randomized order. The impact of artificial light scatter on cup-to-disc area ratio, cup volume, rim volume, cup shape measure, height variation contour, and mean retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness was evaluated. RESULTS: Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that there was no significant change in cup-to-disc area ratio, cup volume, rim volume, height variation contour, cup shape measure, or mean RNFL thickness as a function of increasing light scatter cell concentration. CONCLUSION: Artificial light scatter had no statistically significant impact on the stereometric parameters of the HRT II. From a clinical perspective, useful SLT data can be acquired with confidence from patients with diagnosed/suspected glaucoma and concomitant cataract.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.373 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207