Objective grading of the anterior eye

Purpose. To convert objective image analysis of anterior ocular surfaces into recognisable clinical grades, in order to provide a more sensitive and reliable equivalent to current subjective grading methods; a prospective, randomized study correlating clinical grading with digital image assessment. Methods. The possible range of clinical presentations Of bulbar and palpebral hyperaemia, palpebral roughness and corneal staining were represented by 4 sets of 10 images. The images were displayed in random order and graded by 50 clinicians using both subjective CCLRU and Efron grading scales. Previously validated objective image analysis was performed 3 times oil each of the 40 images. Digital measures included edge-detection and relative-coloration components. Step-wise regression analysis determined correlations between the average subjective grade and the objective image analysis measures. Results. Average subjective grades Could be predicted by a combination of the objective image analysis components. These digital ``grades'' accounted for between 69%, (for Efron scale-graded palpebral redness) and 98% (for Efron scale-graded bulbar hyperaemia) of the subjective variance. Conclusions. The results indicate that clinicians may use a combination of vessel areas and overall hue in their judgment of clinical severity for certain conditions. Objective grading call take these aspects into account, and be used to predict an average ``objective grade'' to be used by a clinician in describing the anterior eye. These measures are more sensitive and reliable than subjective grading while still utilizing familiar terminology, and can be applied in research or practice to improve the detection, and monitoring of ocular surface changes.

The influence of patient's age on clinical decision-making about coronary heart disease in the USA and the UK

This paper examines UK and US primary care doctors' decision-making about older (aged 75 years) and midlife (aged 55 years) patients presenting with coronary heart disease (CHD). Using an analytic approach based on conceptualising clinical decision-making as a classification process, it explores the ways in which doctors' cognitive processes contribute to ageism in health-care at three key decision points during consultations. In each country, 56 randomly selected doctors were shown videotaped vignettes of actors portraying patients with CHD. The patients' ages (55 or 75 years), gender, ethnicity and social class were varied systematically. During the interviews, doctors gave free-recall accounts of their decision-making. The results do not establish that there was substantial ageism in the doctors' decisions, but rather suggest that diagnostic processes pay insufficient attention to the significance of older patients' age and its association with the likelihood of co-morbidity and atypical disease presentations. The doctors also demonstrated more limited use of 'knowledge structures' when diagnosing older than midlife patients. With respect to interventions, differences in the national health-care systems rather than patients' age accounted for the differences in doctors' decisions. US doctors were significantly more concerned about the potential for adverse outcomes if important diagnoses were untreated, while UK general practitioners cited greater difficulty in accessing diagnostic tests.