Comparison of the efficacy of three direct ophthalmoscopes: a clinical study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retinal examination using direct ophthalmoscope is preferred over other techniques for screening purposes because of its portability and high magnification, despite its power sustainability and cost issues. With increasing number of low-cost sustainable devices available in the market, it is important to assess the efficacy of the devices. We compared three devices - Arclight ophthalmoscope, a D-Eye attached to iPhone 6, and conventional ophthalmoscope Heine K180 - in terms of ease of examination, usage, field of view, color rendition, patient comfort, length of examination, and closeness to the eye. Two trained optometrists examined 26 undilated eyes and graded the ease of retinal examination, ease of use and assessed vertical cup:disc ratio (VCDR). Patients reported their comfort level in terms of glare produced by the light source, length of examination and closeness to the eye. The examiners had a good agreement for all assessments. Of 26 eyes, VCDR assessment was not possible in 10/26 (38.4%) of the examinations, in (3/26, 11.5%) examinations with Arclight, in 0/26 examinations with D-Eye. Ease of use score was higher for Arclight and D-Eye than Heine. D-Eye had a relatively larger field of view than other 2 devices. Heine ranked first in color rendition. The luminance level of the high-beam setting of Arclight was more than twice that of Heine and D-Eye. Despite that, the patients reported experiencing uncomfortable glare in Heine (14/26, 53.8%), significant glare with Arclight (16/26, 61.5%) and some/no glare with D-Eye. The examination time was shorter when using D-Eye. Overall, D-Eye scored better in most of the evaluation items followed by Arclight.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it