MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is there any place for non‐standard automated perimetry in glaucoma monitoring?

2013· article· en· W2030936620 on OpenAlexaff
Balwantray C. Chauhan

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlaucomaOptometryComputer scienceMedicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several modes of non‐standard automated perimetry have been introduced for the detection and the follow‐up of glaucoma, with some techniques described over 30 years ago. The objective of these techniques was to allow clinicians to monitor glaucoma more effectively than standard automated perimetry. In spite of dozens of studies that report apparently favourable results with these techniques, their use has not become widespread, and arguably is decreasing. This presentation will review the evidence for the merit of non‐standard automated perimetry and argue that given that the frequency of standard automated perimetry is well below practice standards, non‐standard perimetric techniques have a limited role in glaucoma.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207