MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761227467 · doi:10.1089/tmj.2017.0120

Accuracy and Reliability of a Handheld, Nonmydriatic Fundus Camera for the Remote Detection of Optic Disc Edema

2017· article· en· W2761227467 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTelemedicine Journal and e-Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsOptic discFundus cameraMedicineFundus photographyOphthalmologyConfidence intervalFundus (uterus)EdemaOptic diskOptometryOphthalmoscopySurgeryVisual acuityOptic nerveGlaucomaFluorescein angiographyRetinalInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Optic disc edema can be an important indicator of serious neurological disease, but is poorly detected using the direct ophthalmoscope. Portable fundus photography may overcome this difficulty. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a handheld, nonmydriatic fundus camera for the detection of optic disc edema. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of nonmydriatic optic disc photographs taken with a portable fundus camera (Pictor Plus; Volk Optical, Mentor, OH) from the University of Michigan Neuro-Ophthalmology Clinics. We included 103 consecutive eyes with optic disc edema and 103 consecutive eyes without optic disc edema of 109 patients. Four masked neuro-ophthalmologists graded a single photograph of each optic disc presented in randomized order and documented the presence of optic disc edema. Sensitivity and specificity of graders' photographic interpretation was compared with clinical examinations. Reliability of assessments within and between graders was determined using kappa statistics. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for detection of optic disc edema were 71.8-92.2% and 81.6-95.2%, respectively. Photos were found to be ungradable in 0-8.3% of cases. The intergrader reliabilities ranged from 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.67] to 0.72 (95% CI: 0.66-0.77). Intragrader reliability ranged from 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63-0.92) to 0.82 (95% CI: 0.69-0.95). DISCUSSION: Photographs taken with portable, nonmydriatic technology met threshold sensitivity and specificity for remote screening for optic disc edema when performed by most, but not all graders. Reliability between graders was moderate-strong and strong within individual providers. CONCLUSIONS: Portable photography holds promise for use in remote screening of optic disc edema.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.348 · 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