Aberrometry Repeatability and Agreement with Autorefraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Commercially available aberrometers are essential to clinical studies evaluating refractive error and image quality. The Discovery System (Innovative Visual Systems, Elmhurst, IL) is a promising clinical instrument that allows investigators to export aberration data for research and analysis purposes. An assessment of the Discovery System's performance is essential to the interpretation of the data obtained. PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to determine the between-visit repeatability of refractive error and higher-order aberration measurements with the Discovery System and to examine between-instrument agreement of refractive error measurements with the Discovery System and Grand Seiko WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor (Grand Seiko Co., Hiroshima, Japan). METHODS: Cycloplegic refractive error values from the Discovery System (over a 3-mm pupil) and the Grand Seiko autorefractor were converted to power vectors (M, J0, and J45), and averaged. Zernike coefficients were also calculated by the Discovery System over a 6-mm pupil through the sixth radial order. Between-visit repeatability and agreement were evaluated using Bland-Altman difference-versus-mean plots. A t-test compared each mean difference (bias) to zero, and the 95% limits of agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-five young adults with a mean (±SD) cycloplegic spherical-equivalent refractive error of -2.91 ± 1.85 diopters (D) (range, -6.96 to +0.74 D) were enrolled. There were no significant between-visit differences with the Discovery System for M, J0, J45, third- through sixth-order root mean square (RMS), higher-order RMS, or spherical aberration (all P > .30), and the repeatability for defocus and higher-order RMS were ±0.31 D and ±0.095 μm, respectively, for a 6-mm pupil. At a 3-mm pupil, the Discovery System, on average, measured slightly more positive values than the Grand Seiko for M (0.28 D), J0 (0.11 D), and J45 (0.12 D; all P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: The Discovery System was very repeatable and would be an appropriate instrument to measure cycloplegic refractive error and higher-order aberration changes in adults. Small differences in refractive error were found between the Discovery System and Grand Seiko.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".