Contrast and Glare Testing in the Assessment of Visual Performance of Candidate Eyes for Penetrating Keratoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether visual acuity (VA) measurements performed at low levels of contrast and glare are a better diagnostic tool for determining whether corneal clouding warrants surgery. METHODS: Fifty-nine subjects were recruited from among the candidates for corneal graft. Monocular VA was measured with three Regan contrast VA charts: 96, 25, and 11%, with and without glare provided by the Brightness Acuity Tester (BAT). The discriminative ability of the tests was estimated using the area (AR) under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Associations between the different VA tests and the Visual Function Index (VF-14) score were studied, using Spearman coefficients. RESULTS: When comparing candidate eyes with contralateral eyes with corneal disease, lower contrasts VA tests provided greater discriminative power. VA measurements made with glare also tended to provide greater discrimination. In fact, discrimination was best with 11% contrast VA with glare, but "testability" was poor. The most practical test in a clinical setting, which retained high discriminative ability (0.798), was the 25% contrast VA with glare. The eye with the best VA correlated strongly with the VF-14, especially at 25% contrast without glare, resulting in an Rs of -0.729. CONCLUSION: Twenty-five percent contrast VA with BAT could help the practitioner to decide whether a corneal transplant is warranted when symptoms of reduced vision are more important than what high-contrast VA might indicate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".