A portable instrument for measuring macular pigment with central fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a portable instrument for measuring macular pigment optical density. METHODS: The instrument is small, uses light emitting diodes as light sources and the principles of heterochromatic flicker photometry of comparing foveal and extra-foveal minimum flicker matches. It uses central fixation for the extra-foveal matches, which subjects found easier than eccentric fixation. Subjects with healthy eyes used the instrument to measure their pigment density in a number of eye clinics. RESULTS: The mean pigment density in 124 eyes in 124 individuals was 0.41 +/- 0.16 (mean +/- SD), there was no significant change with age but the density was less in females, those with light irides, smokers, subjects on diets low in precursor carotenoids and in those exposed to several hours of daylight every day or who used sun beds. CONCLUSIONS: The portable instrument gave valid and reliable data that confirmed published values for macular pigment. It was convenient to use in the clinic and has potential as a screening tool.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".