MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321018494 · doi:10.15273/dmj.vol49no1.11641

A medical student’s guide to the slit lamp examination

2023· article· en· W4321018494 on OpenAlex
Sunil Ruparelia

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie Medical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Health Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlit lampPrimary careMedicineCurriculumEye examinationEmergency departmentMedical educationEye careSlitOptometryOphthalmologyPsychologyFamily medicineNursingVisual acuityPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The slit lamp is an essential tool for the diagnosis of common eye pathology. Despite many eye conditions presenting initially to primary care, medical students do not typically receive formal training with the slit lamp in standard medical education curriculum. This guide provides a consistent, systematic framework that may be used by students and clinicians when approaching a slit lamp examination. Additionally, suggestions intended to optimize examination outcomes are described. It is our hope that this guide serves to enhance medical student comfort and proficiency with eye examinations, be it in an ophthalmology clinic, primary care, or emergency department setting.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.432 · 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