TORONTO: A trial-oriented multidimensional psychometric testing algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bayesian adaptive methods for sensory threshold determination were conceived originally to track a single threshold. When applied to the testing of vision, they do not exploit the spatial patterns that underlie thresholds at different locations in the visual field. Exploiting these patterns has been recognized as key to further improving visual field test efficiency. We present a new approach (TORONTO) that outperforms other existing methods in terms of speed and accuracy. TORONTO generalizes the QUEST/ZEST algorithm to estimate simultaneously multiple thresholds. After each trial, without waiting for a fully determined threshold, the trial-oriented approach updates not only the location currently tested but also all other locations based on patterns in a reference data set. Since the availability of reference data can be limited, techniques are developed to overcome this limitation. TORONTO was evaluated using computer-simulated visual field tests: In the reliable condition (false positive [FP] = false negative [FN] = 3%), the median termination and root mean square error (RMSE) of TORONTO was 153 trials and 2.0 dB, twice as fast with equal accuracy as ZEST. In the FP = FN = 15% condition, TORONTO terminated in 151 trials and was 2.2 times faster than ZEST with better RMSE (2.6 vs. 3.7 dB). In the FP = FN = 30% condition, TORONTO achieved 4.2 dB RMSE in 148 trials, while all other techniques had > 6.5 dB RMSE and terminated much slower. In conclusion, TORONTO is a fast and accurate algorithm for determining multiple thresholds under a wide range of reliability and subject conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".