Comparing Optic Nerve-head-size Measurements by the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph With Fundus Photography Performed With a Novel Focusing Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare disc areas as measured with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) to those obtained with a fundus camera. DESIGN: A nonrandomized comparative trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six patients (88 eyes) who were participating in a glaucoma-screening study. METHODS: Disc areas from fundus photographs taken with a Nidek nonmydriatic camera were measured in pixels (Adobe photoshop 7.0). A magnification factor was determined, using a previously described technique that uses the position of the focusing slide on the camera to account for the spherical refractive error. The resulting calculated disc areas were then compared with the disc areas as measured with the HRT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disc area. RESULTS: The limits of agreement between the 2 techniques were 0.49 and -0.51 mm2, indicating that the range of differences between these imaging techniques was approximately 1 mm2. Using a Bland-Altman plot, the distribution of residuals indicated that the 2 techniques do not differ in a systematic way. CONCLUSIONS: Disc area measurements can be reasonably determined from digital fundus photography if corrected for focusing slide position when compared with HRT. This may have useful applications for both clinical glaucoma patient care and population-based glaucoma-screening programs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".