Comparison of non‐invasive tear film stability measurement techniques
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
BACKGROUND: Measurement of tear film stability is commonly used to give an indication of tear film quality but a number of non-invasive techniques exists within the clinical setting. This study sought to compare three non-invasive tear film stability measurement techniques: instrument-mounted wide-field white light clinical interferometry, instrument-mounted keratoscopy and hand-held keratoscopy. METHODS: Twenty-two subjects were recruited in a prospective, randomised, masked, cross-over study. Tear film break-up or thinning time was measured non-invasively by independent experienced examiners, with each of the three devices, in a randomised order, within an hour. RESULTS: Significant correlation was observed between instrument-mounted interferometric and keratoscopic measurements (p < 0.001) but not between the hand-held device and the instrument-mounted techniques (all p > 0.05). Tear film stability values obtained from the hand-held device were significantly shorter and demonstrated narrower spread than the other two instruments (all p < 0.05), while no significant differences were observed between the two instrument-mounted devices (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Good clinical agreement exists between the instrument-mounted interferometric and keratoscopic measurements but not between the hand-held device and either of the instrument-mounted techniques. The results highlight the importance of specifying the instrument employed to record non-invasive tear film stability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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