MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126219427 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001638

Bulbar Redness and Dry Eye Disease: Comparison of a Validated Subjective Grading Scale and an Objective Automated Method

2021· article· en· W3126219427 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAllergan
KeywordsMedicineGrading scaleQuadrant (abdomen)OphthalmologyGrading (engineering)Visual analogue scaleSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: In this study, assessments of conjunctival redness were performed to evaluate whether patients with or without dry eye disease (DED) could be discriminated based on this measure. Our findings suggest that subjectively grading redness by quadrant, as opposed to automated en face measurements, may be more suitable for this purpose. PURPOSE: This study aimed to quantify bulbar redness using the validated bulbar redness (VBR) grading scale and an automated objective method (Oculus Keratograph 5M; K5M) in participants with DED and non-DED controls. METHODS: Participants with DED (Ocular Surface Disease Index score ≥20 and Oxford scale corneal staining ≥2) and controls (Ocular Surface Disease Index score ≤10 and corneal staining ≤1) attended two study visits. In part 1A of visit 1, baseline bulbar redness was graded with the VBR scale in each conjunctival quadrant of both eyes, followed by automated measurements of temporal and nasal redness with the K5M. This was immediately followed by part 1B, during which a topical vasoconstrictor was instilled into both eyes. Redness assessments were repeated 5 and 30 minutes after instillation with both instruments. Participants returned 14 days later for visit 2, where the same assessments as for visit 1A were repeated. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants (50 DED and 24 controls) completed the study. There were statistically significant differences in redness between the DED and control groups when assessed with the VBR scale (14/16 comparisons; all, P < .05), whereas no significant differences in K5M-derived redness between the DED and non-DED groups were found at any location or time point. Both subjective and objective instruments detected statistically significant reductions in redness 5 and 30 minutes after instillation of the vasoconstrictor (all, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Although both subjective and objective instruments were sensitive to detecting changes in redness induced by vasoconstriction, statistically significant differences in redness between DED and control groups were only found using the VBR scale.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.445 · 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