ArticleResearch square2023
Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests.
Article in Research square, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We introduce expected information gain to quantify measurements and apply it to compare visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) tests. We simulated observers with parameters covered by the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests and observers based on distributions of normal observers tested in three luminance and four Bangerter foil conditions. We first generated the probability distributions of test scores for each individual in each population in the Snellen, ETDRS and qVA visual acuity tests and the Pelli-Robson, CSV-1000 and qCSF contrast sensitivity tests and constructed the probability distributions of all possible test scores of the entire population. We then computed expected information gain by subtracting expected residual entropy from the total entropy of the population. For acuity tests, ETDRS generated more expected information gain than Snellen; scored with VA threshold only or with both VA threshold and VA range, qVA with 15 rows (or 45 optotypes) generated more expected information gain than ETDRS. For contrast sensitivity tests, CSV-1000 generated more expected information gain than Pelli-Robson; scored with AULCSF or with CS at six spatial frequencies, qCSF with 25 trials generated more expected information gain than CSV-1000. The active learning based qVA and qCSF tests can generate more expected information than the traditional paper chart tests. Although we only applied it to compare visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests, information gain is a general concept that can be used to compare measurements and data analytics in any domain.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.