MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581886429 · doi:10.2147/opth.s127035

Randomized, masked, in vitro comparison of three commercially available tear film osmometers

2017· article· en· W2581886429 on OpenAlexaff
Guillermo Rocha, Eric Gulliver, Armand Borovik, Clara C. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyRandomized controlled trialOptometrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision and accuracy of commercially available tear film osmometers. Methods: Contrived tear solution target values representing the physiological range of tear osmolarity (normal eyes 297 mOsm/L, moderately dry eyes 342 mOsm/L, and severe dry eyes 383 mOsm/L) were constructed using a mix of mono- and divalent electrolytes, metabolites, serum albumin, and pH balanced to 7.4. Solution values were randomized and masked from the investigators during testing. Osmometers (Wescor 5520 Vapro Pressure Osmometer: device A, TearLab Osmolarity System: device B, and i-Med Pharma i-Pen: device C) were calibrated according to manufacturer instructions. Each level was tested 64× on each osmometer across two sites. Accuracy was reported as a correlation coefficient against expected linear dilutions, precision was calculated as percent coefficient of variation. Results: Device A reported a correlation with known solutions of r2 =0.98, with averages of 305.6±4.0, 352.2±5.5, and 389.8±4.0 mOsm/L, and coefficient of variations (CVs) of 1.3%, 1.6%, and 1.0%, respectively. Device B reported an r2 =0.96, with averages of 300.6±3.7, 341.4±7.9, and 376.8±5.1 mOsm/L, and CVs of 1.2%, 2.3%, and 1.4%, respectively. Device C reported an r2 =0.03, with averages of 336.4±21.5, 342.0±20.7, and 345.7±22.0 mOsm/L, and CVs of 6.4%, 6.1%, and 6.4%, respectively. Conclusion: In this randomized, masked, in vitro study, device A and device B had significantly better accuracy and precision in measuring osmolarity of contrived tear solutions of known target values compared to device C. Device C showed insufficient performance to accurately and precisely delineate osmolarity levels in the physiological range. Furthermore, in vivo studies would be required to compare performance in human subjects. Keywords: tear osmolarity, TearLab Osmometer, i-Pen Osmometer, electrical impedance, Wescor Osmometer, precision

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207