Evaluation of Eye-Pain Severity between Dry-Eye Subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess eye pain between dry eye (DE) subtypes using questionnaires and the PainVision® (Osachi) apparatus. This study involved 52 eyes of 52 DE patients with eye pain (43 females and 9 males; mean age: 64.2 ± 13.2 (mean ± SD) years) who were classified into three DE subtypes (aqueous deficient DE (ADDE); decreased wettability DE (DWDE); and increased evaporation DE (IEDE)) based on fluorescein breakup pattern. In all subjects, severity of eye pain was evaluated using PainVision®, the DE-symptom-questionnaire visual analog scale (DSQ-VAS), and the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2). The severity of eye pain was compared between the three DE subtypes. PainVision® findings revealed greater severity of eye pain in ADDE and DWDE than in IEDE (p < 0.05, respectively), despite no difference being found in each questionnaire. A significant correlation was found between eye pain in DSQ-VAS and continuous pain, intermittent pain, neuropathic pain, and total pain in SF-MPQ-2 (R = 0.50, 0.49, 0.47, and 0.56, respectively) (all: p < 0.001). Greater severity of eye pain was found in ADDE and DWDE than in IEDE, and PainVision® was found useful for the objective assessment of eye pain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".