Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction
Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refract...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE 2020-09, Vol.9 (10), p.3144 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 3144 |
container_title | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya Sirak, Delila Brautaset, Rune Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto |
description | Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3390/jcm9103144 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_467691</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2448410552</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kk1P3DAQhq0KVBBw6S-I1AtCCrU9jh1fkOgKSiUQiLZny3EmbJYkXuxkq_77erVbPioxlxmNn_fVjDWEfGL0FEDTLwvXa0aBCfGB7HOqVE6hhJ1X9R45inFBU5Sl4Ex9JHsAlALXap_cX6xsN9mx9UPmm2ycY3aHofGht4PDdeu8e_ChHed9_tVGrLMbHOe-jllish9TtUA3tivM7rEJ1q19DsluY7uIR9t8QH5dXvycXeXXt9--z86vcycoG3OwBaNlLQuuCi4raDhYwVA2JXfWVthIyR3Wymqhq5rXulRpAQmCqgQDhwOSb3zjb1xOlVmGtrfhj_G2NdvWY6rQCKmkZonX7_LL4OsX0T8hEwUVXApI2rONNgE91g6HMdjurcWbl6Gdmwe_MqrQWmmRDI63BsE_TRhH07fRYdfZAf0UDReiFIwWxXqvz_-hCz-FIX2lSbMwJqBgZaJONpQLPsaAzfMwjJr1ZZiXy4C_3T6rBQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2641143518</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</title><source>SWEPUB Freely available online</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya ; Sirak, Delila ; Brautaset, Rune ; Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya ; Sirak, Delila ; Brautaset, Rune ; Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/jcm9103144</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33003297</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Algorithms ; Automation ; Clinical medicine ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Methods</subject><ispartof>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020-09, Vol.9 (10), p.3144</ispartof><rights>2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 by the authors. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7599794/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7599794/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,552,727,780,784,885,27922,27923,53789,53791</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:145042643$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirak, Delila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brautaset, Rune</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</title><title>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE</title><description>Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Methods</subject><issn>2077-0383</issn><issn>2077-0383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>D8T</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kk1P3DAQhq0KVBBw6S-I1AtCCrU9jh1fkOgKSiUQiLZny3EmbJYkXuxkq_77erVbPioxlxmNn_fVjDWEfGL0FEDTLwvXa0aBCfGB7HOqVE6hhJ1X9R45inFBU5Sl4Ex9JHsAlALXap_cX6xsN9mx9UPmm2ycY3aHofGht4PDdeu8e_ChHed9_tVGrLMbHOe-jllish9TtUA3tivM7rEJ1q19DsluY7uIR9t8QH5dXvycXeXXt9--z86vcycoG3OwBaNlLQuuCi4raDhYwVA2JXfWVthIyR3Wymqhq5rXulRpAQmCqgQDhwOSb3zjb1xOlVmGtrfhj_G2NdvWY6rQCKmkZonX7_LL4OsX0T8hEwUVXApI2rONNgE91g6HMdjurcWbl6Gdmwe_MqrQWmmRDI63BsE_TRhH07fRYdfZAf0UDReiFIwWxXqvz_-hCz-FIX2lSbMwJqBgZaJONpQLPsaAzfMwjJr1ZZiXy4C_3T6rBQ</recordid><startdate>20200929</startdate><enddate>20200929</enddate><creator>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</creator><creator>Sirak, Delila</creator><creator>Brautaset, Rune</creator><creator>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>D8T</scope><scope>ZZAVC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200929</creationdate><title>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</title><author>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya ; Sirak, Delila ; Brautaset, Rune ; Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c401t-3a5108d6527526b3f23a41e6f82caabef662ced7a949bd2d98708863407b3f323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirak, Delila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brautaset, Rune</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Freely available online</collection><collection>SwePub Articles full text</collection><jtitle>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Venkataraman, Abinaya Priya</au><au>Sirak, Delila</au><au>Brautaset, Rune</au><au>Dominguez-Vicent, Alberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction</atitle><jtitle>JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE</jtitle><date>2020-09-29</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>3144</spage><pages>3144-</pages><issn>2077-0383</issn><eissn>2077-0383</eissn><abstract>Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>33003297</pmid><doi>10.3390/jcm9103144</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2077-0383 |
ispartof | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020-09, Vol.9 (10), p.3144 |
issn | 2077-0383 2077-0383 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_467691 |
source | SWEPUB Freely available online; PubMed Central Open Access; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Agreements Algorithms Automation Clinical medicine Medicin och hälsovetenskap Methods |
title | Evaluation of the Performance of Algorithm-Based Methods for Subjective Refraction |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T07%3A13%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20the%20Performance%20of%20Algorithm-Based%20Methods%20for%20Subjective%20Refraction&rft.jtitle=JOURNAL%20OF%20CLINICAL%20MEDICINE&rft.au=Venkataraman,%20Abinaya%20Priya&rft.date=2020-09-29&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3144&rft.pages=3144-&rft.issn=2077-0383&rft.eissn=2077-0383&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/jcm9103144&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E2448410552%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2641143518&rft_id=info:pmid/33003297&rfr_iscdi=true |