Comparison of Patti Pics and Lea Symbols Optotypes in Children and Adults
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: Although a great variety of pediatric tests of visual acuity exist, few have been compared directly within the same patients or have been evaluated directly against an adult gold standard. METHODS: Right eyes from 80 3- to 5-year-old preschoolers were tested at 3 m with the two current pediatric optotype tests-the Patti Pics and the Lea Symbols (Mass VAT versions)-that best adhere to the international standard for early eye and vision screening. For comparison, right eyes from 52 adults were tested under the same conditions with both pediatric tests and with a gold standard Mass VAT Sloan letter test. RESULTS: Compared with the Patti Pics, both children and adults showed relatively better and finer levels of visual acuity with Lea Symbols (0.07-0.11 logMAR better). Compared with Sloan letters, adults' acuity was also 0.09 logMAR better with the Lea Symbols but was virtually identical and also showed good statistical agreement with Patti Pics acuity. CONCLUSIONS: Although both pediatric tests show excellent testability, our data suggest that acuity values obtained with the Patti Pics optotypes are more consistent with those obtained with a gold standard visual acuity test used for older children and adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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