Validation of patient symptom diary in acute posterior vitreous detachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to determine the validity of an original patient symptom diary in recording symptoms of posterior vitreous detachment (PVD). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, all patients presenting to the Hotel Dieu hospital emergency eye clinic between September 2008 and July 2009 diagnosed with acute PVD were offered enrollment in the study. Patients were given the Queen's University posterior vitreous detachment patient diary at the initial visit after detailed eye examination, assessment of risk factors for retinal tears and detachments and a thorough explanation of their presenting complaints to record their symptoms related to PVD. At a random point during their six-week follow up, the patients were verbally asked the same questions being recorded in the diary over the phone. At the six-week follow up visit, the diaries were collected and the verbal results were compared with the written results. RESULTS: There was substantial to near perfect agreement between the verbal questions and written answers. Cohen's kappa scores for flash frequency, flash intensity, floater frequency, and floater type were 0.6229, 0.6389, 0.6495, and 0.8603, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Queen's University posterior vitreous detachment patient diary is a useful tool for investigating the quantity, quality and change in symptoms of patients presenting with PVD in the first 6 weeks of initial presentation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".