Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel Bayesian Decision-Making Algorithm for Vision Loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current diagnostic aids for acute vision loss are static flowcharts that do not provide dynamic, stepwise workups. We tested the diagnostic accuracy of a novel dynamic Bayesian algorithm for acute vision loss. Seventy-nine “participants” with acute vision loss in Windsor, Canada were assessed by an emergency medicine or primary care provider who completed a questionnaire about ocular symptoms/findings (without requiring fundoscopy). An ophthalmologist then attributed an independent “gold-standard diagnosis”. The algorithm employed questionnaire data to produce a differential diagnosis. The referrer diagnostic accuracy was 30.4%, while the algorithm’s accuracy was 70.9%, increasing to 86.1% with the algorithm’s top two diagnoses included and 88.6% with the top three included. In urgent cases of vision loss (n = 54), the referrer diagnostic accuracy was 38.9%, while the algorithm’s top diagnosis was correct in 72.2% of cases, increasing to 85.2% (top two included) and 87.0% (top three included). The algorithm’s sensitivity for urgent cases using the top diagnosis was 94.4% (95% CI: 85–99%), with a specificity of 76.0% (95% CI: 55–91%). This novel algorithm adjusts its workup at each step using clinical symptoms. In doing so, it successfully improves diagnostic accuracy for vision loss using clinical data collected by non-ophthalmologists.
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 | 0.015 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".