MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193435862 · doi:10.1167/tvst.10.9.17

Canonical Grading Scales of Corneal and Conjunctival Staining Based on Psychophysical and Physical Attributes

2021· article· en· W3193435862 on OpenAlexaff
Trefford Simpson, Carolyn G. Begley, Ping Situ, Yunwei Feng, J. Daniel Nelson, Barbara Caffery, Clark Springs, Sara Butterworth Connell

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Vision Science & Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsNorth Toronto Eye CareUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStainingGrading (engineering)ChromaticityLuminanceOphthalmologyPsychophysicsGrading scaleMedicinePathologyPsychologyComputer scienceSurgeryArtificial intelligenceBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In this study, we apply psychophysical scaling principles based on physical (photometric) attributes of images to better understand the factors involved in clinician judgement of ocular surface staining and, using that knowledge, to develop photographic scales for the assessment of staining for dry eye (DE) and related conditions. Methods: Subjects with noninfectious ocular surface staining were enrolled at five clinical sites. Following instillation of fluorescein, photographs of corneal staining were taken every 30 seconds for at least 5 minutes. The same procedure was followed for conjunctival staining after instillation of 2 µl of 1% lissamine green. A subset of the best corneal and bulbar conjunctival staining images were anonymized and a spectroradiometer measured photometric attributes (luminance and chromaticity). The images were scaled psychophysically by study investigators, who participated in constructing grading scales based on physical and psychophysical analyses. The final grading scales were refined following consultation with outside DE experts. Results: Photographs were collected from 142 subjects (81% women), with an average age of 58 ± 17 years; 89% were diagnosed with DE. There was a monotonic relationship between between physical measurements and psychophysically scaled staining of both corneal (fluorescein) and bulbar (lissamine green) staining. Michelson contrast and u' (chromaticity) accounted for 66% and 64% of the variability in the psychophysically scaled images of fluorescein corneal and lissamine green conjunctival staining, respectively. Translational Relevance: This paper provides examples of the first ever clinically usable ocular surface staining scales validated using psychophysical scaling and the physical attributes (luminance and chromaticity) of the staining itself. In addition, it provides a generalizable method for the development of other clinical scales of ocular appearance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.328
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Vision Science & TechnologySame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207