Comparing Lower- and Higher-Order Aberrations: Zywave® II Hartmann–Shack Wavefront Aberrometer versus Peramis Pyramidal Aberrometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: II and Peramis CSO aberrometers for lower- and higher-order aberration (LOA and HOA) measurements on dynamic conditions without cycloplegia. Methods: In this prospective comparative study, participants aged 20-45 years were examined. Exclusion criteria included previous ocular surgery or trauma, recent contact lens wear, and any ocular or systemic diseases. Each device was operated by an experienced operator who remained blind to the data obtained from the other aberrometer. We compared LOA measurements and the root mean square (RMS) of coma, spherical aberration, and total third- and fourth-order HOAs between the two devices, and the optical zone for measuring HOAs was the same in both the devices. Results: In the study involving 42 eyes of 21 participants (52.4%, female), excellent agreement was observed in LOAs (sphere and cylinder) for both the right and left eyes, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.96 and 0.95, respectively, using a 6 mm pupil. In addition, good-to-excellent reliability was reported for the agreement between the two devices in total HOA (t.HOA) and the RMS error of the total aberration, for pupil sizes of 5 mm and 6 mm. However, there was poor agreement between the two devices for third- and fourth-order aberrations in both the pupil sizes. Conclusions: aberrometers in measuring sphere, cylinder, t.HOA, and total aberration. Nevertheless, notable differences were identified in third- and fourth-order aberrations, suggesting that specific measurements may not consistently align between devices, and these values should not be considered interchangeable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".