MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417016137 · doi:10.1080/08164622.2025.2593889

Effect of mire spacing on the subjective non-invasive break-up time measurement: a comparison of instruments

2025· article· en· W4417016137 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Lortie-Milner, Etty Bitton

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Optometry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Optometric Education Trust Fund
KeywordsMireBody heightStatistical analysisSurvey instrument

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Non-invasive break-up time (NIBUT) has become the measurement of choice to evaluate stability of the tear film. Tear film stability is essential in the diagnosis and follow-up of dry eye disease. BACKGROUND: Instruments used to measure NIBUT have different spacing of luminous mires, but the influence of this characteristic on the measurement of NIBUT is poorly understood. This study aimed at comparing the characteristics of five different instruments used to measure NIBUT and to determine if the mire spacing had an impact on the measured NIBUT. METHODS: Mire spacing of the instruments was assessed using a calibration sphere. Two raters then measured the NIBUT of 20 participants (20 eyes) with normal ocular surfaces three consecutive times with five different instruments (Oculus Placido Disk, Keeler Tearscope Plus with the Coarse and the Fine Grid, Medmont E300 Topographer and Oculus Keratograph 5M). A two-way repeated measure analysis of variance was performed to compare the NIBUT data and correlation values (intra-class and Spearman) were computed for intra-rater agreement and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The Tearscope Plus with the Fine Grid was the instrument that presented the finest mire spacing. Two instruments, the Medmont E300 and the Keratograph gave shorter NIBUTs compared to the Tearscope Plus with the Fine Grid. All instruments had good inter-rater agreement. The Medmont E300 had a less good test-retest reliability for one of the raters. Bland-Altman plots were used to compare all the instruments with the one having the finest mire spacing. A positive proportional bias between the Tearscope Plus using the Fine Grid and the Coarse Grid was found. CONCLUSION: The topography-based instruments had shorter subjective NIBUT values in non-dry eye participants compared to the other instruments. Mire spacing is not the most definitive factor that impacts the NIBUT value.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.416 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental OptometrySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207