Limbus misrepresentation in parametric eye models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the axial, radial and tangential limbus position misrepresentation when parametric models are used to represent the cornea and the sclera. METHODS: This retrospective study included 135 subjects aged 22 to 65 years (36.5 mean ±9.8 STD), 71 females and 64 males. Topography measurements were taken using an Eye Surface Profiler topographer and processed by a custom-built MATLAB code. Eye surfaces were freed from edge-effect artefacts and fitted to spherical, conic and biconic models. RESULTS: When comparing the radial position of the limbus, average errors of -0.83±0.19mm, -0.76±0.20mm and -0.69±0.20mm were observed within the right eye population for the spherical, conic and biconic models fitted up to 5mm. For the same fitting radius, the average fitting errors were -0.86±0.23mm, -0.78±0.23mm and -0.73±0.23mm for the spherical, conic and biconic models respectively within the left eye population. For the whole cornea fit, the average errors were -0.27±0.12mm and -0.28±0.13mm for the spherical models, -0.02±0.29mm and -0.05±0.27mm for the conic models, and -0.22±0.16mm and 0.24±0.17mm for the biconic models in the right and left eye populations respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Through the use of spherical, conic and biconic parametric modelling methods, the eye's limbus is being mislocated. Additionally, it is evident that the magnitude of fitting error associated with the sclera may be propagating through the other components of the eye. This suggests that a corneal nonparametric model may be necessary to improve the representation of the limbus.
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 | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".