Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness Questionnaire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize the psychometric properties of the standard patient evaluation of eye dryness (SPEED) questionnaire and to validate and compare its performance with 4 existing dry eye questionnaires. METHODS: A total of 50 subjects (40 female and 10 male) were enrolled; of these, 30 were symptomatic and 20 asymptomatic, as determined using the ocular surface disease index (OSDI). This study consisted of 2 visits in which all subjects completed 5 different dry eye questionnaires (SPEED, OSDI, dry eye questionnaire, McMonnies dry eye questionnaire, and subjective evaluation of symptom of dryness) in random order at each visit. Clinical measurements were obtained on the first visit. Repeatability was determined using concordance correlation coefficient; dimensionality was determined using principal component, factor, and Rasch analyses; and validity was determined by comparing SPEED scores with dry eye diagnosis based on OSDI (primarily using receiver-operator curve analysis). RESULTS: The SPEED questionnaire data were found to be unidimensional and repeatable. Three principal components (dryness, burning, and soreness/fatigue) were identified and SPEED between visit concordance correlation coefficient was 0.923 (95% confidence interval, 0.868-0.955). The area under the receiver-operator curves was 0.928. The only clinical measures that correlated "well" with SPEED questionnaire scores were corneal staining (P < 0.05), meibomian gland score (P < 0.05), and meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion score (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The SPEED questionnaire was shown to be a repeatable and valid instrument for measurement of dry eye symptoms. The SPEED score also correlated significantly with ocular surface staining and clinical measures of meibomian gland function.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it