ArticleScientific reports2024
Predicting contrast sensitivity functions with digital twins.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical Bayesian augmented Hebbian reweighting model of perceptual learning.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Using Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling to Enhance Statistical Inference on Contrast Sensitivity.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We developed and validated digital twins (DTs) for contrast sensitivity function (CSF) across 12 prediction tasks using a data-driven, generative model approach based on a hierarchical Bayesian model (HBM). For each prediction task, we utilized the HBM to compute the joint distribution of CSF hyperparameters and parameters at the population, subject, and test levels. This computation was based on a combination of historical data (N = 56), any new data from additional subjects (N = 56), and "missing data" from unmeasured conditions. The posterior distributions of the parameters in the unmeasured conditions were used as input for the CSF generative model to generate predicted CSFs. In addition to their accuracy and precision, these predictions were evaluated for their potential as informative priors that enable generation of synthetic quantitative contrast sensitivity function (qCSF) data or rescore existing qCSF data. The DTs demonstrated high accuracy in group level predictions across all tasks and maintained accuracy at the individual subject level when new data were available, with accuracy comparable to and precision lower than the observed data. DT predictions could reduce the data collection burden by more than 50% in qCSF testing when using 25 trials. Although further research is necessary, this study demonstrates the potential of DTs in vision assessment. Predictions from DTs could improve the accuracy, precision, and efficiency of vision assessment and enable personalized medicine, offering more efficient and effective patient care solutions.
Indexed as
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.