MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027288560 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e3182120514

Waterloo Eye Study: Data Abstraction and Population Representation

2011· article· en· W2027288560 on OpenAlex
Carolyn M. Machan, Patricia K. Hrynchak, Elizabeth L. Irving

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicData-Driven Disease Surveillance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)AbstractionComputer sciencePopulationOptometryMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine data quality in the Waterloo Eye Study (WatES) and compare the WatES age/sex distribution to the general population. METHODS: Six thousand three hundred ninety-seven clinic files were reviewed at the University of Waterloo, School of Optometry. Abstracted information included patient age, sex, presenting chief complaint, entering spectacle prescription, refraction, binocular vision, and disease data. Mean age and age distributions were determined for the entire study group and both sexes. These results were compared with Statistics Canada (2006) estimates and information on Canadian optometric practices. Inter- and intraabstractor reliability was determined through double entry of 425 and 50 files, respectively; the Cohen kappa statistic (K) was calculated for qualitative data and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for quantitative data. Availability of data within the files was determined through missing data rates. RESULTS: The age of the patients in the WatES ranged from 0.2 to 93.9 years (mean age, 42.5 years), with all age groups younger than 85 years well represented. Females comprised 54.1% and males 45.9% of the study group. There were more older patients (>65 years) and younger patients (<10 years) than in the population at large. K values were highest for demographic information (e.g., sex, 0.96) and averaged slightly less for most clinical data requiring some abstractor interpretation (0.71 to 1.00). The two lowest interabstractor values, migraine (0.41) and smoking (0.26), had low reporting frequencies and definition ambiguity between abstractors. Intraclass correlation coefficient values were >0.90 for all but one continuous data type. Missing data rates were <2% for all but near phoria, which was 7.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The WatES database includes patients from all age groups and both sexes. It provides a fair representation of optometric patients in Canada. Its large sample size, good interabstractor repeatability, and low missing data rates demonstrates sufficient data quality for future analysis.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.418 · 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