Visual midline gauge validity and repeatability: Comparison to a current clinical method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Visual midline shifts are thought to occur post-stroke and be a risk factor for falls. This study investigates a new method for quantifying visual midline shifts, a first step toward developing greater understanding of visual midline shift. PURPOSE: This study standardized the parameters of a novel visual midline gauge, compared the results with the current clinical method, and presents normative data and repeatability of both methods. METHODS: Ninety-three participants without neurological or ocular problems were recruited in Canada and Hong Kong. In experiment 1, horizontal and vertical visual midlines were measured using the gauge for two speeds and two repositioning methods. In experiment 2, visual midline was measured for three distances using a target speed and repositioning method chosen based on the first experiment. Visual midlines were also measured using the current clinical method during both visits. RESULTS: There were no significant effects of age, speed, study location, or repositioning method on visual midline positions (all p>0.05). For the horizontal direction, measurements at 25 cm were different from those at 50 (p=0.03) and 100 cm (p=0.001). For the vertical direction, there was no such effect. The measurements were found to be repeatable to within approximately 3°. In both visits, there were significant correlations between measurements using the visual midline gauge and the clinical method for the vertical direction (all p<.001) but not for the horizontal direction (all p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The measurement of visual midline is tolerant of differences in target speed, testing method, and age of the participants, and the visual midline gauge measurements are repeatable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".