Comparison of the INNOVA Visual Acuity System Stereotest with the Frisby-Davis 2 Stereotest for the Evaluation of Distance Stereoacuity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Distance stereo acuity has been shown to be useful in monitoring conditions such as control of intermittent strabismus. The Frisby Davis distance (FD2) stereotest has been shown to be reliable and is felt to be the gold standard in England. The device however is not widely available in the United States or Canada and is not automated. This study compares the Innova distance stereoacuity test with the Frisby Davis distance (FD2) stereotest. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with normal acuity and a normal ophthalmology exam were evaluated. Prior to dilation all patients had an Innova distance stereoacuity test and FD2 test. Both the Innova distance stereoacuity test and the FD2 test were performed at ten feet. The results of the tests were compared using Bland-Altman plot analysis. RESULTS: The INNOVA system tended to underestimate distance stereoacuity by approximately 30 arc seconds compared to the FD2 test. If the INNOVA results were corrected by this amount, then there was a good correlation between the INNOVA results and the FD2. CONCLUSION: The Innova distance stereoacuity test underestimates stereopsis by approximately 30 arc seconds but does so with sufficient consistency that it may serve as an acceptable method of measuring distance stereoacuity. This study is the first that has correlated the Innova stereoacuity test with the FD2.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".