Diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer compared to the Perkins applanation tonometer in assessing intraocular pressure in rural patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vision health is recognized as a critical unmet need in North America. The ocular morbidity associated with glaucoma results from increased intraocular pressure (IOP) and early detection is crucial for the management of glaucoma. Our objective was to find a diagnostically accurate screening tool for intraocular hypertension that can be used in rural communities. We sought to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the iCare rebound tonometer against the gold standard Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT) in measuring IOP. METHODS: Patients from two rural communities in Ontario, Canada visiting their optometrists for routine appointments had their IOP measured by a non-contact tonometer (NCT), an iCare rebound tonometer, and a Perkins applanation tonometer (PAT). Values of sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for a positive and negative result were calculated for the iCare and the NCT. RESULTS: Complete data was collected from 209 patients. Overall, the iCare tonometer had high levels of validity, as compared to the gold standard PAT. The iCare tonometer displayed excellent sensitivity of 98.3% (90-99%, 95% CI) and excellent negative likelihood ratio of 0.024 (0.0088-0.066, 95% CI) which is useful for ruling out intraocular hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The iCare tonometer is a reasonably valid tool for detecting elevated IOP. Its ease of use, simplicity, and accessibility makes it a good screening tool to improve eye health in rural areas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".