MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168954417 · doi:10.1136/bjo.2005.074682

Frequency of seeing characteristics of the short wavelength sensitive visual pathway in clinically normal subjects and diabetic patients with focal sensitivity loss

2005· article· en· W2168954417 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward D. Gilmore

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineRepeatabilityOphthalmologyDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineCardiologyEndocrinologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To define the frequency of seeing (FOS) characteristics of the short wavelength (SW) sensitive visual pathway in clinically normal subjects and in diabetic patients with focal SW sensitivity loss. METHODS: For clinically normal subjects, FOS was assessed at two retinal locations (4.24 degrees and 9.90 degrees eccentricity) for both white on white (WW) and SW stimulus parameters. Inter-examination variability was quantified for the clinically normal subjects only. For patients with diabetes, FOS was assessed inside an area of focal SW sensitivity loss, and at the same eccentricity in the quadrant diametrically opposite, using SW stimulus parameters only. RESULTS: For clinically normal subjects, the group mean SW FOS slope was significantly flatter (p<0.0001) than that of WW at both locations. The coefficient of repeatability for SW FOS slope was+/-41.55 dB(-1) (relative to a group mean sensitivity of 23.98 dB(-1)) and+/-19.98 dB(-1) (group mean sensitivity 16.15 dB(-1)) for 4.24 degrees and 9.90 degrees , respectively. For the patients with diabetes, the group mean SW FOS slope was significantly flatter (p=0.020), and group mean SW threshold significantly higher (p=0.007) in the area of focal SW sensitivity loss than in that of the non-focal sensitivity loss. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the clinical utility of SW automated perimetry will be limited by a greater magnitude of measurement variability, as indicated by a flatter FOS slope, compared to conventional automated perimetry.

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)0.001
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207