Improving the robustness of the Sequentially Optimized Reconstruction Strategy (SORS) for visual field testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perimetry, or visual field test, estimates differential light sensitivity thresholds across many locations in the visual field (e.g., 54 locations in the 24-2 grid). Recent developments have shown that an entire visual field may be relatively accurately reconstructed from measurements of a subset of these locations using a linear regression model. Here, we show that incorporating a dimensionality reduction layer can improve the robustness of this reconstruction. Specifically, we propose to use principal component analysis to transform the training dataset to a lower dimensional representation and then use this representation to reconstruct the visual field. We named our new reconstruction method the transformed-target principal component regression (TTPCR). When trained on a large dataset, our new method yielded results comparable with the original linear regression method, demonstrating that there is no underfitting associated with parameter reduction. However, when trained on a small dataset, our new method used on average 22% fewer trials to reach the same error. Our results suggest that dimensionality reduction techniques can improve the robustness of visual field testing reconstruction algorithms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".