A New Fundus Camera Technique to Help Calculate Eye-Camera Magnification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To find a simple means for calculating eye-camera magnification to permit estimation of true retinal object size from a retinal photograph. METHODS: The position of the focusing knob on 3 different retinal cameras (TRC-50F and TRC-50X; Topcon America Corp, Paramus, NJ; and the CR6-45NM Non-mydriatic Retinal Camera; Canon Inc, Tokyo, Japan) was measured during optic nerve photography and correlated with the refractive error, or spectacle refraction, of the subject (N = 11 for each camera). RESULTS: A strong correlation was found between focusing knob position and spectacle refraction for each of the 3 cameras tested (r = 0.96, r = 0.99, and r = 0.97, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The focusing knob position reflects the spectacle refraction of the eye being photographed, and spectacle refraction is known to correlate well with eye-camera magnification. Therefore, focusing knob position can be used to help calculate eye-camera magnification and, hence, true retinal object size. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The true size of the optic nerve head is important for the diagnosis of glaucoma from a retinal photograph. This technique is a simple means to calculate optic nerve head size, which may be especially useful in mass retinal photographic 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 | 0.000 | 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".