Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Visual processing deficits involving temporal characteristics are typically not captured by the widely used outcome measures (i.e., Expanded Disability Status Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite) in multiple sclerosis (MS). Visual temporal thresholds (i.e., measurements of the temporal aspects in visual processing) are typically significantly higher (i.e., prolonged) in MS patients when compared to controls. The test-retest reliability of these thresholds was examined in patients with MS. METHODS: Visual temporal thresholds were measured in 21 stable MS patients during two separate test sessions. Test-retest reliability and the standard error of measurement were calculated. The threshold of change in visual temporal thresholds in MS patients that would correspond to real change beyond measurement error with 95% certainty was also calculated. For comparisons, a control group (n = 10) was included. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of this measure of visual temporal thresholds was 0.97. The threshold indicating change beyond chance or measurement error with 95% certainty was 11 ms. Higher thresholds were significantly correlated with longer durations of disease. CONCLUSIONS: This measure of visual temporal thresholds has excellent test-retest reliability and a change of greater than 11 ms is highly likely to represent real change in MS patients. The findings indicate that these measurements may provide useful clinical information about functional changes regarding the temporal aspects of the visual system, which is currently not captured by the Extended Disability Status Scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".