Vernier Acuity Cards: Examination of Development and Screening Validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Because vernier acuity seems to be limited by the visual cortex, it possesses excellent potential as a clinical/screening tool to detect amblyopia in infants and toddlers. Thus, we developed the vernier acuity cards specifically for this age group. We compared developmental data gathered using this new test and the Teller Acuity Cards. In addition, we compared the clinical/screening validity of the two tests by testing children old enough to complete optotype acuity testing (6.2 ± 2.5 years). METHODS: Vernier acuity and grating acuity were assessed in 98 children and 18 adults with normal vision (age range = 2.8 months to 35.8 years). The developmental time course of the two visual functions was compared. In addition, vernier acuity and grating acuity were measured in 43 children with amblyopia and 30 nonamblyopic children with an amblyogenic condition. Each child's grating acuity and vernier acuity were classified as normal/abnormal based on age-appropriate norms. These classifications were compared with amblyopia diagnoses by crowded HOTV or Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) testing. RESULTS: Vernier acuity and grating acuity follow different developmental time courses in normal infants and children. Vernier acuity is initially poorer than grating acuity but surpasses it by the age 5 years and is adult-like by the age 8 years. Compared with the Teller Acuity Cards, the vernier acuity cards yielded higher sensitivity (81 vs. 44%) and similar specificity (73 vs. 93%) and were more sensitive to all amblyopia subtypes/levels of severity. CONCLUSIONS: The developmental time course of vernier acuity differed from that of grating acuity, implying that it is not mediated by the retina. Also, the impressive validity of the vernier acuity cards suggests that they are an effective tool for detecting amblyopia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".