Self versus examiner administration of the Ocular Surface Disease Index©
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
To compare the difference in Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) scores when participants were given the OSDI to complete on their own (self-guided, SG), versus under the guidance of the examiner (examiner-guided, EG). 100 participants enrolled in this prospective two-visit study (fifty under-45 years old, 38F/12M; and fifty 45 years-and-older, 42F/8M). Participants who scored ≥1 on the Subjective Evaluation of Symptoms of Dryness (SESoD) were included in this study. Participants completed the OSDI SG during the first visit. Participants returned the next day and repeated the OSDI, but with EG (with standardized instructions). Participants were under deception and believed that they were comparing the OSDI to the SESoD. The mean OSDI score of the SG and EG administration was 32.0 ± 17.3 and 33.8 ± 19.6 respectively (p > 0.05) with 95% limits of agreement between −20.6 and +24.2. The correlation between SG and EG administration was Spearman's r = 0.81, p < 0.01. The mean difference between SG and EG was not significant (p > 0.05) for both the under-45 group, and 45-and-older group. The 95% limits of agreement for the under-45 group were smaller than the 45-and-older group (under-45: [−15.5, +13.1,], 45-and-older: [−23.3, +32.2]). A significant difference was found between 8 of the 12 questions items (all p ≤ 0.01). However, the mean difference for each was <0.6 and was not considered to be clinically significant. There was no clinically significant difference in OSDI score between SG and EG administration, however having instructions provided with EG administration affected variability of scores in the older group more than the younger group. Comparar la diferencia de las puntuaciones de la prueba Ocular Surface Disease Index© (OSDI) cuando a los participantes se les solicitó que completaran dicha prueba por sí mismos (auto-guiado - SG), y cuando la prueba fue guiada por un examinador (EG). Se seleccionó a 100 participantes en este estudio prospectivo de dos visitas (cincuenta menores de 45 años, 38F/12V, y cincuenta mayores de 45 años, 42F/8V). Se incluyó en el estudio a aquellos participantes con una puntuación ≥1 en la prueba de evaluación subjetiva de los síntomas del ojo seco (SESoD). Los participantes completaron el test OSDI SG durante la primera visita. Al día siguiente regresaron y repitieron el OSDI, pero con un EG (instrucciones estandarizadas). Se les sometió a engaño, y creyeron que estaban comparando el OSDI con el SESoD. La puntuación media de la prueba OSDI para las intervenciones SG y EG fue de 32,0 ± 17,3 y 33,8 ± 19,6 respectivamente (p > 0,05), con un 95% de límite de acuerdo entre -20,6 y +24,2. La correlación entre las intervenciones SG y EG, utilizando el coeficiente de Spearman, fue de r = 0,81, p < 0,01. La diferencia media entre SG y EG no fue significativa (p > 0,05) para ambos grupos de edad. El 95% de límite de concordancia para el grupo de menores de 45 años [−15,5,+13,1] fue menor que para el grupo de mayores de 45 años [−23,3,+32,2]). Se encontró una diferencia significativa en 8 de las 12 cuestiones (en todos ellos, p≤0,01). Sin embargo, la diferencia media para cada uno de ellos fue <0,6, por lo que no se consideró clínicamente relevante. No se produjo una diferencia clínicamente significativa entre las puntuaciones de la prueba OSDI entre las intervenciones SG y EG, aunque el disponer de instrucciones aportadas por el administrador EG afectó en mayor medida a la variabilidad de las puntuaciones del grupo de mayores de 45 años en comparación al grupo de menores de dicha edad.
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