MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389455094 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v85i4.5553

Clinical Procedures: A New Test to Examine the Different Components in Subjective Monocular Refraction

2023· article· en· W4389455094 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChartMonocularComputer scienceTest (biology)Medical prescriptionOptometryTest methodConfusionPrincipal (computer security)Medical physicsArtificial intelligenceMedicineMathematicsStatisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance: Subjective monocular refraction is the basis for determining an optometric prescription. A single testing target for determining the final prescription, by simultaneous viewing with a method to control testing error, simplifies the procedure, since the patient has a better appreciation of the end-point and relates more easily to the examination. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to identify a test chart and method of examination to improve the efficiency of determining the correction of the astigmatic and spherical components of a prescription. The testing procedure uses an immediate comparison and avoids sequential testing that relies on memory. A method of avoiding errors, caused by looking away from the optical centre, is included. This is important in cases of high prescriptions. This method may be suitable for ancillary staff to use in the introductory testing routine. Method: A single, non-movable test chart, independent of the circle of least confusion, is presented. The target is based on the simultaneous resolution of a line in four meridians. A second chart is incorporated into the principal chart. This uses chromatic displacement caused by the off-centre viewing of a prism to avoid errors. Result: This testing method, when used in the clinic, has been shown to be efficient and easily understood. A limited independent trial showed that the method is as effective as traditional methods and gives acceptable results when used by ancillary staff. The results obtained by non-experienced individuals are also presented. This may be useful in environments where no professional staff are available. Conclusion: The method described here improves the examination of subjective refraction without the need to change targets. There is no need to consider the circle of least confusion. The target includes tests for axis, cylinder power, spherical power and duochrome. The use of a simultaneous comparison is better received by patients than the sequential test, and is easily understood. The spherical end-point is definite, unless there is hyper-acuity or accommodative spasm. The test improves the ability of the patient to understand, and be comfortable with, the testing method. Binocular balance is not considered here.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207