MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174866142 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000000750

A Proposed Model for Integrated Low‐Vision Rehabilitation Services in Canada

2015· article· en· W2174866142 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susan J. Leat

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationTriageMultidisciplinary approachGovernment (linguistics)Vision rehabilitationMedicineVisual impairmentOptometryMedical emergencyPhysical therapyPolitical sciencePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The provision and funding of low-vision rehabilitation (LVR) are very variable across Canada. Quebec is well served by 14 government-funded rehabilitation centers. In most provinces, there are no such multidisciplinary services-optometrists offer LVR from their offices to a greater or lesser degree or undertake assessments in centers run by CNIB (formerly Canadian National Institute for the Blind). No integrated model for LVR exists across Canada. This document proposes such a model, which focuses on the profession of optometry, but may also be applicable to ophthalmology. METHODS: This article describes different models of LV provision, the evidence for their relative effectiveness, the current situation in Canada, including the variability between areas and the need to increase referrals to LVR, and the current international consensus for LV provision. With the projected increase in people with LV, a generally accepted LV model for Canada is required to improve patient care. RESULTS: It has become recognized in the global community that a tiered system may be required to provide for patients who range in their visual rehabilitation needs and geographic locations. The proposed LVR model includes three levels: 1. Screening/recognition of a potential patient with LV followed by appropriate triage. All optometrists should be involved at this level. 2. Management of the patient with minimum visual impairment/disability. This level of LVR can take place in a local optometry office with a minimal of extra equipment or devices. Level 3: Comprehensive LVR for patients with more vision loss and greater disabilities. Level 3 requires collaboration with other professionals, and three mechanisms are proposed by this which may take place. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model is expected to be useful for future education, policy decisions, and collaboration in Canada, and it may also be of interest for the development of LV services in other countries.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.425 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207