P.020 A novel scale for describing visual outcomes in patients following resection of lesions affecting the optic apparatus – Unified Visual Function Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Historically, description of patient visual acuity and visual field changes following intracranial procedures has been very rudimentary. Clinicians and researchers have relied on the use of vague descriptions like “improved”, “worsened”, and “unchanged” to describe outcomes following resections of tumours affecting the optic apparatus, which are difficult to quantify in a clinical setting. Methods: We present a novel way to describe a patient’s visual function as a combination of visual acuity and visual field assessment that is simple to use and can be used by surgeons, and researchers to gauge visual outcomes following tumour resection. Results: With our scale we were able to capture the overall visual change while being sensitive enough to define the overall quantity of improvement or worsening quantitatively, using categories that are clinically relevant and understandable. Conclusions: The implementation of pre- and post- operative assessment provides clinically relevant information for surgeons and is robust for routine use.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".