MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734916025 · doi:10.5539/mas.v11n8p38

The Factors Affecting Eye Patients (Cataract) In Jordan by Using the Logistic Regression Model

2017· article· en· W2734916025 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionStatisticsRegression analysisMedicineVariablesRegressionBinomial regressionOptometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to use the logistic regression model to classify patients as infected and without cataracts. The independent variables were used to represent the gender, the age, the pressure in the right eye, the pressure in the left eye, HbA1C, and the anemia, representative variables for the study of Cataract disease affects the eyes, based on a random sample of (116) patients. The results proved that the used logistic regression model is an efficient and representative for data that shows through (Likelihood Ratio Test) and (Hosmer and Lemeshow test), and the study proved that the value of (R Square Nagelkerke=1) this means that 100% of the change in the occurred changes in the response variable explained through the Logistic regression model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0210.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.264 · 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