MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048611012 · doi:10.1097/ijg.0b013e318255da30

Comparison of Neuroretinal Rim Area Measurements Made by the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph I and the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II

2012· article· en· W2048611012 on OpenAlexaff
Ya Xing Wang, Neil O’Leary, Nicholas G. Strouthidis, Edward T. White, Tuan A. Ho, David F. Garway‐Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaucoma · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinaMedicineTomographyGlaucomaOphthalmologyOptometryOpticsPhysicsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate the agreement between neuroretinal rim area (RA) measurements using the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph I (HRT Classic) and Heidelberg Retina Tomograph II (HRT II). To compare apparent RA changes in follow-up series of HRT II topographies when using either an HRT Classic or HRT II mean topography as baseline. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study and "no-change," short time series study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three ocular hypertensive and 31 primary open angle glaucoma subjects. METHODS: Five HRT Classic and 5 HRT II examinations were acquired from 1 eye of each subject, across 2 visits within 6 weeks. For the cross-sectional study, follow-up RA measurements from HRT Classic and HRT II were compared, using the same HRT Classic mean topography as the baseline. The linear rates of RA change were compared in 2 short time series with either an HRT Classic or an HRT II mean topography as baseline, and 4 follow-up HRT II mean topographies. Intervals between topographies were arbitrarily set at 1 year for meaningful comparisons of rates. Rates of RA change over time were calculated by linear regression. Separate analyses were performed using 3 available reference planes (RP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Global and sectoral RA measurements in HRT Classic and HRT II mean topographies; linear rates of RA change. RESULTS: HRT Classic minus HRT II mean differences (95% limits of agreement) were 0.09 (-0.17, 0.35) mm, 0.09 (-0.13, 0.32) mm, and 0.11 (-0.24, 0.46) mm for the Moorfields, 320 µm, and standard RPs, respectively (P<0.001 for all RPs, Wilcoxon rank sum test). In the time series, the mean differences (95% limits of agreement) of RA rates of change (HRT Classic baseline minus HRT II baseline) were -0.01 (-0.06, 0.03) mm/y, -0.01 (-0.06, 0.04) mm/y, and -0.0 (-0.09, 0.05) mm/y using the Moorfields, 320 µm, and standard RPs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although HRT software is backward-compatible, follow-up RA measurements made in the same eye using HRT Classic and HRT II devices display statistically and clinically meaningful systematic differences when HRT Classic topographies are used as a baseline.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaucomaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207