MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403837011 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v86i3.5576

Comprehensive Teleoptometry Exams in Canada: A Proposed Clinical Framework

2024· article· en· W4403837011 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicolas Blais, Adrianna Warren, Stan Woo, Jean-Marie Hanssens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Many high-income countries like Canada are faced with unmet needs regarding the availability of access to eye care, especially in rural, remote, or northern areas. Teleoptometry has the potential to improve access to primary eye care and help prevent, detect, diagnose and treat uncorrected refractive error and sight-threatening eye diseases. Given the rapid adoption of technology for virtual care during the COVID pandemic, the existing teleoptometry guidelines in Canada are limited in scope and may lead to uncertainty for optometrists practicing remote care. The purpose of this paper is to build a scaffold that highlights the similarities and differences between an in-person comprehensive eye examination and one that is delivered through comprehensive teleoptometry in Canada. This proposed clinical framework draws from both the existing published literature and the clinical experience of the authors. This paper discusses issues for teleoptometry including patient consent, efficiency, delegation, training and the patient pathway including referral protocols when indicated. Results: Comprehensive teleoptometry eye exams are very similar to in-person eye exams, but they depend more on the assistance of an in-person technician/optometric assistant. The exams include delegated tests performed by an optometric assistant and tests controlled remotely by the optometrist like refraction. However, other tests that require clinical judgment to execute or interpret should be performed by the optometric assistant under the direct supervision of the remote optometrist using live video. The remote optometristbe able to repeat any test during videoconferencing. Conclusion: Teleoptometry is a tool optometrists can use to reach patients that struggle to access an in-person eye exam. This evidence-informed, draft framework provides a point of reference for discussion by the Federation of Optometric Regulatory Authorities of Canada and the provincial regulatory authorities to protect the public and increase access through the delivery of remote primary eye care in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→