Comprehensive Primary Eye Care: A Comparison Between an In-Person Eye Exam and a Tele-Eye Care Exam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Proper access to primary eye care is essential in addressing vision impairment, and tele-eye care examinations are a promising solution that could facilitate this access in many rural or remote areas. Even though remote eye exams are becoming increasingly frequent, comprehensive tele-eye care exams are still limited by the lack of published data. The aim of this study is to compare a comprehensive tele-eye care exam with a gold standard in-person primary eye care exam with an emphasis on refractive measurements, ocular health assessment, confidence level of the eye care providers and patient satisfaction. Methods: Sixty-six participants underwent two comprehensive eye exams performed by two eye care providers. One was a gold standard in-person exam, while the other was a remote exam performed by an eye care provider through videoconference. An overall patient satisfaction survey and a questionnaire for visual comfort with a trial frame from each modality were completed and the eye care providers scored their confidence level for each test. Exam results and diagnoses were compared between both modalities. Results: Tele-refraction has a good to excellent agreement with in-person subjective refraction in terms of sphero-cylindrical power and best corrected visual acuity. There was no statistically significant difference for visual comfort between both modalities. The agreement between in-person and remote exams for ocular health assessment ranged from fair to almost perfect, but there was a low prevalence of ocular pathologies within the study sample. The confidence level of the eye care providers and patient satisfaction were statistically higher in-person. Conclusion: Tele-eye care appears to be statistically and clinically non-inferior to in-person eye exams, especially for refraction, but the low prevalence of ocular pathologies somewhat limits the comparison of its efficacy for ocular health assessment. More studies on comprehensive tele-eye care exams are needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".