One-week test-retest reliability of nine binocular tests and saccades used in concussion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Tests of binocular vision (BVTs) and ocular motility are used in concussion assessment and management. Purpose To determine the one-week test-retest reliability of 9 binocular vision tests (BVTs) and a test of saccades proposed for use in concussion management. Study Design Prospective test-retest. Methods We examined the one-week test-retest reliability of 9 BVTs in healthy participants: 3D vision (gross stereoscopic acuity), phoria at 30cm and 3m, ability of eyes to move/fixate in-sync (positive and negative fusional vergence at 30cm and 3m, near point of convergence and near point of convergence – break [i.e. double vision]) and 1 ocular motor test, saccades. Results We tested 10 males and 10 females without concussion and a mean age of 25.5 (4.1) years. The intraclass correlations suggest good reliability for phoria 3m (0.88) and gross stereoscopic acuity (0.86), and moderate reliability for phoria 30cm (0.69), near point of convergence (0.54), positive fusional vergence (0.54) and negative fusional vergence (0.66) at 30cm, and near point of convergence - break (0.64). There was poor reliability for saccades (0.34), and both positive and negative fusional vergence (0.49 and 0.43, respectively) at 3m. Limits of agreement (LoA) were best for saccade (±34%) and worst for phoria 30 cm (±121%) and ranged from ±58% to ±70% for 7 of the 8 other tests. The LoA for phoria at 3m were uninformative because measurements for 18 of 20 participants were identical. Conclusion We found test-retest reliability of the BVTs and saccades ranging from poor to good in healthy participants, with the majority being moderate. Clinical Relevance For these vision tests to be clinically useful, the effect of concussion must have a moderate to large effect on the scores of most of the tests. What is known about the subject Concussions may affect some parts of visual function 1-week test-retest reliability for most visual tests is under-studied What this study adds to existing knowledge We provide intra-class coefficients and limits of agreement for 10 different visual function tests commonly conducted by clinicians in patients with concussion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".