Determining Consistency And Agreement Of Scores Across Two Measurements Of The Visual System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some authors have suggested concussion symptoms may be due to subtle visual problems because they are similar to those that occur with difficulty focusing the eyes. Although binocular vision tests (BVTs) are frequently used to evaluate visual symptoms, their reliability has not been evaluated. The 10 BVTs under investigation measure: 3D vision (gross stereoscopic acuity (GSA)), saccades, anatomic deviation (AD) at 30cm and 3m, and the eye’s ability to move/focus in-sync [convergence motor punctum proximum (CMPP), binocular fusion with convergence (BFC) and divergence (BFD) at 30cm and 3m, convergence fusional proximum (CFP)]. PURPOSE: To determine the one-week test-retest reliability of 10 BVTs in healthy participants. METHODS: One clinician examined each participant at their earliest convenience (T1), and one week after their first visit (T2). We assessed test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and limits of agreement (LoA). We judged an ICC of ≤0.5 as poor, 0.51-0.74 as moderate, 0.75-0.89 as good, and ≥0.90 as excellent reliability. We present 95% LoA for the % difference i.e. the difference in scores (T1-T2) divided by the average of the scores (T1+T2)/2 times 100. RESULTS: We tested 20 participants (1 lost at T2, excluded from analysis). There were 10 males and 10 females with a mean age of 25.5 (SD = 4.0) years. Our ICC results suggest good reliability for AD 3m (0.88), and moderate reliability for GSA (0.62), AD 30cm (0.69), CMPP (0.54), BFC (0.54) and BFD (0.66) at 30cm, and CFP (0.64). There was poor reliability for saccade (0.34), and BFC (0.49) and BFD (0.43) at 3m. LoA was best for saccade (±34%) and worst for AD 30 cm (±121%), and ranged from ±58% to ±70% for 7/8 other tests. For AD 3m, LoA (±200%) did not provide an accurate summary as it assumes a Normal distribution of values. In fact, 18/20 pairs of measurements were identical, one paired scored 0 and 1, the other scored 0 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate moderate to good test-retest reliability for 7 out of 10 BVTs, and poor reliability for saccades, and BFC and BFD at 3m. LoA results suggest the effect of concussion must have a moderate to large effect on the scores of most of the tests if they are to be clinically helpful.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".