Evaluation of tear osmolarity measured by I-Pen osmolarity system in patients with dry eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This retrospective comparative study was to evaluate tear osmolarity measured by I-Pen osmolarity system (I-MED Pharma Inc, Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec, Canada) in healthy subjects without dry eye disease (DED) and patients with DED, and its association with other ocular surface parameters. This study comprised 65 eyes of 65 patients. The ocular surface parameters including tear osmolarity with I-Pen osmometer of the patients who visited the refractive surgery center of Samsung Medical Center between January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 were retrospectively collected. The subjects were divided as asymptomatic normal group and symptomatic dry eye group. The distribution of tear osmolarity and its association with other ocular surface parameters were evaluated. Total thirty-two patients (32 eyes) were included in the control group, and 33 patients (33 eyes) were included in the DED group. Tear osmolarity was significantly higher in the DED group. Tear osmolarity was negatively correlated with tear break-up time, and the Schirmer test, and was positively correlated with Ocular Surface Disease Index symptom score. The cut-off value of 318 mOsm/L showed a sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 90.6% for diagnosing DED. The I-Pen osmometer can be considered suitable for use in the clinical setting, with good performance in DED diagnosis.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".