MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107104127 · doi:10.2147/opth.s284844

<p>Icare Home Tonometer: A Review of Characteristics and Clinical Utility</p>

2020· review· en· W3107104127 on OpenAlexaff
John Liu, Ticiana De Francesco, Matthew B. Schlenker, Iqbal Ike K. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsPrism Eye InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyIntraocular pressureGoldmann Applanation TonometerOptometryGlaucomaFood and drug administrationMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Icare HOME (TA022, Icare Oy, Vanda, Finland) is rebound tonometer recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in March 2017 designed for self-measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP). IOP remains a major modifiable risk factor for glaucoma progression; however, IOP measurements typically occur through single office measurements on Goldmann applanation tonometry (GAT) and do not always reveal the complete picture of patient's IOP patterns and daily fluctuations, which are important for accurate diagnosis and evaluation. Numerous studies have now compared the efficacy of the Icare HOME to that of GAT. The objective of this article is to review the existing literature surrounding the Icare HOME tonometer and its efficacy as a self-tonometer in comparison to GAT. The available literature has shown promising results in its accuracy of measuring IOP but suggests cautious usage in patients with central corneal thicknesses or IOP ranges that are outside of a certain range. This article will also provide details and example cases for when the Icare HOME may be most clinically useful.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207