MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150687916 · doi:10.1167/8.6.414

Optics and psychophysics in a clinical setting: Success of a screening battery for assessing visual functioning in human infants

2010· article· en· W2150687916 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Adams, D. E. MacNeil, Cassandra Dove, Mary L. Courage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyPsychophysicsContrast (vision)Visual acuityMonocularTest (biology)PopulationPsychologyVision testMedicineOptometryOphthalmologyComputer sciencePerceptionNeuroscienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The emergence of new time-efficient, portable, and user-friendly psychophysical technologies for young children now creates the possibility of mass screening programs for detecting early eye and visual dysfunction. Recent experimental work suggests that vision screening in 3–5 yr-old preschool children is feasible and that it can prevent or reduce long term visual pathology. Here, we expand on this work by attempting to extend vision screening to even younger children, namely infants who are still within the most critical phase of visual and CNS plasticity. Methods: 6- and 12-month-old infants (n = 70) were assessed with a battery of the latest optical and psychophysical tests. Within a single session, we attempted to measure, for each eye, optical refractive error (Welch Allyn SureSight non-cycloplegic autorefractor), visual acuity (TAC), contrast sensitivity (CS sine-wave cards and PV low contrast faces test), and conducted a full ocular alignment/motility examination. For comparison, 2- and 3-year-olds (n = 120) were assessed with an equivalent battery of tests. Results: The test battery was reasonably successful. With the exception of the CS card test, most infants and preschoolers completed all tests for each eye [83% (6 months), 70% (12 months), 62% (2 years) and 71% (3 years)], in a mean time ranging from 9.2 - 14.6 min. Conclusions: Given the subject population, this was an ambitious test battery, especially as all infants and young children had to wear monocular occlusion for most tests. Nonetheless, most completed all tests for each eye within a single session. This speaks to the progress made by psychophysical and clinical researchers in developing effective pediatric vision tests. Moreover, in settings with continuous or repeated access to young children, (e.g., a daycare, public health or breast-feeding clinics), it should be feasible for even young infants to complete a full vision screening during this critical developmental period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.433 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207