MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Direct ophthalmoscopy in pediatric emergency care

2001· review· en· W2333107196 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Emergency Care · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmoscopyMedical emergencyEmergency departmentOptometryEye examinationIntensive carePediatric ophthalmologyOphthalmologyIntensive care medicineVisual acuityNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thorough knowledge about the basic ophthalmic examination is instrumental in the emergency department (ED) to determine the severity of eye emergencies and to develop a plan for treatment, including the possible need for an ophthalmology consultation. The direct ophthalmoscope is undoubtedly the most practical instrument available to a pediatric emergency physician for ophthalmic examination. However, the information elicited by its use is dependent on the quality of the instrument and the competency of the user. A greater understanding of the range of possibilities of the direct ophthalmoscope as a diagnostic tool will facilitate more efficient care of the pediatric patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.366 · 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