MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379473297 · doi:10.1177/20552076231180727

Remote vision testing of central retinal acuity and comparison with clinic-based Snellen acuity testing in patients followed for retinal conditions

2023· article· en· W4379473297 on OpenAlexaff
Earnest P. Chen, Michael Mills, Tara Gallagher, A. Polis, Sophie Blasberg, Peter Pham, Ronald C. Gentile, Tsontcho Ianchulev

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPrism Eye Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual acuityMedicineOptometryIntraclass correlationOphthalmologySnellen chartVision test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The unmet need for remote monitoring of visual function with home-based, patient-centric technologies became increasingly palpable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with chronic eye conditions lack access to office-based examinations. Here, we evaluate the efficacy of the Accustat® test, a virtual application for measuring near visual acuity on any portable electronic device via telehealth. Materials and methods: Thirty-three adult subjects from the telehealth remote monitoring service of a retina practice performed the Accustat® acuity testing at home. All patients underwent in-office general eye examination with additional fundoscopic examination and optical coherence tomography retina imaging. Best corrected visual acuity assessment using a Snellen chart was compared with remote visual acuity assessment with the Accustat® test. Visual acuity was analyzed and compared between the best-corrected near visual acuity potential achieved on the Accustat® and in-office distance best-corrected Snellen visual acuity. Results: The mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuities of all eyes tested using the Accustat test was 0.19 ± 024 and for the office Snellen test 0.21 ± 0.21. A linear regression model with 95% confidence intervals reveals that there is a strong linear relationship between Accustat logMAR and office Snellen logMAR. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated 95.2% significant agreement between Accustat and Office Snellen's best corrected visual acuity. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.94) demonstrated a strong positive correlation between at home versus office visual acuity. Conclusion: There was a high correlation between the visual acuity measured with the Accustat near vision digital self-test and the office Snellen acuity test, suggesting the potential utility of scalable remote monitoring of central retinal function via telehealth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207