Comparison of Humphrey versus Compass Perimetry for Hemianopsia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 57% of stroke patients experience visual defects. Visual restitution therapy post-stroke remains controversial, with some attributing improvements to adaptive eye scanning movements rather than true field augmentation. We compare Compass fundus-tracking perimetry (CMP), which compensates for eye movements, to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA) for homonymous hemianopsia. Nine patients (mean age: 47) with homonymous hemianopsia on HFA and corresponding neuroimaging defect were prospectively tested on the same day using the HFA (24–2 SITA Fast) and CMP (24–2 ZEST fast). Reliability indices, mean deviation (MD), and visual field index (VFI for HFA; FDPI for Compass) were compared via median differences and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The CMP had a significantly lower MD (median difference: −0.33 dB, p = .02), significantly greater false negative rate (median difference: 27%, p = .04), and a significantly longer test duration (median difference: 87 seconds, p = .01) than HFA. However, no between-analyzer difference occurred for visual field index (median difference: 6.8%, p = .65), false positive rate (median difference: −2.8%, p = .18), CMP blind spot index and HFA fixation losses (median difference: 0, p = .79). Bland-Altman plots showed acceptable agreement, with a + 2.42 dB bias in MD favoring CMP. CMP offers real-time compensation for fixation losses but did not show a clinically significant advantage over HFA for homonymous hemianopsia.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it