Evaluation of validity for novel biomedical instrument measuring fatigue, sleep deprivation and performance capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The PMI FIT 2000–3 is an instrument that purports to measure fatigue, sleep deprivation and performance capacity by assessing pupil diameter, constriction amplitude, constriction latency and saccadic velocity and labeling the subject “High Risk” or “Low Risk”. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the instrument to detect fatigue in people. Twelve subjects were sleep deprived for 48 hours. The subjects were continuously monitored by the researchers to ensure wakefulness and were also assessed by the instrument every 4 hours. The results of the study showed that none of the subjects were labeled “High Risk” for fatigue at the end of the 48 hours. The distribution of “Low Risk” and “High Risk” assessments throughout the study period appeared random. In no case was a test subject labeled “High Risk” without being labeled “Low Risk” during the same test period. Overall, no test subject was consistently labeled “High Risk” for fatigue, poor performance or sleep deprivation at any time. Conclusions In this study, the PMI FIT 2000–3 failed to find any of the subjects fatigued or sleep deprived at the end of the 48‐hour period by labeling them “High Risk”. The instrument failed to indicate a trend that the subjects were becoming more fatigued or sleep deprived as the 48‐hour test period progressed. Of the four measurements listed above, only saccadic velocity showed any potential to indicate a trend towards fatigue, reduced performance or sleep deprivation. Therefore, from this study, we concluded that the PMI FIT 2000–3 is not a valid measure of fatigue, sleep deprivation or performance capacity. This study was funded by a grant from Aircraft Certification Branch of Transport Canada Civil Aviation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".