Fixation Stability Recording: How Long for Eyes with Central Vision Loss?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fixation examination with the MP-1 microperimeter (Nidek Technologies Srl., Vigonza, PD, Italy) determines the preferred retinal loci and fixation stability in patients with central vision loss. It is typically done for periods of 15 to 30 s as per the manual's recommendations, which are arbitrary. In this study, we examined (1) whether fixation stability depends on the duration of recording and (2) whether fixation stability changes over time. METHODS: Raw eye-position data from 76 patients with bilateral central vision loss (mean age = 80 ± 9.6 yrs) who had fixation examination recordings with the MP-1of at least 15 s were used. Bivariate contour ellipse areas (BCEAs) were calculated and compared for intervals of 0 to 5 s, 0 to 10 s, and 0 to 15 s and for three consecutive 5-s intervals (0-5 s, 5-10 s, and 10-15 s). Ellipse's centroid location, axes extent, and tilt angle were also evaluated for each of these intervals. RESULTS: BCEA worsened significantly with increasing the time of fixation recording (P < .001). Compared to the BCEA during the first 5 s of examination recording, median BCEA increased by a factor of 1.4 for the first 10 s and of 1.6 for the first 15 s of recording. However, the bivariate ellipses for the three consecutive 5-s intervals were the same in terms of area, centroid location, and axes extent, but differed significantly in tilt angle (P = .005). Fixation stability (BCEAs) results were also confirmed with an additional analysis performed on shorter sampling intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Fixation stability deteriorates with increasing duration of the fixation recording, but when fixation is evaluated in shorter consecutive 5-s intervals, only a difference in ellipse's tilt angle is found. These results suggest that the current recommendations for fixation stability recording with the MP-1 can be shortened to a less demanding duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".