Resume-aware faculty matching

Find professors who actually fit you

Upload your resume. Four AI agents analyze your background, rank the faculty who fit, inspect their recent research, and help you draft outreach — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

Free to startNo credit cardCancel anytime
Top matches Balanced preset
Dr. Sarah Chen
Stanford · Interpretability · NLP
91
Dr. Marcus Holloway
MIT · Robotics · RL
84
Dr. Aisha Okonkwo
CMU · Fairness · HCI
82
Nova · Professor Researcher · re-ranking top 20…

Nicholas J. Volpe

Verified

University of Pennsylvania · Rehabilitation Medicine

Active 1981–2024

h-index51
Citations15.1k
Papers40229 last 5y
Funding
See your match with Nicholas J. Volpe — sign in to PhdFit.Sign in

Research topics

  • Ophthalmology
  • Medicine
  • Optometry
  • Internal medicine
  • Physical therapy
  • Psychology

Selected publications

  • Eye Disease in Medical Practice

    Medical Clinics of North America · 2021 · 6 citations

    • Medicine
    • Optometry
    • Ophthalmology
  • Automated Pupillometry as an Adjunct to Clinical Examination in Patients With Acute Vision Loss

    Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology · 2020 · 2 citations

    Senior authorCorresponding
    • Medicine
    • Ophthalmology
    • Optometry

    Background: Despite automated pupillometry's (AP) improved detection of relative afferent pupillary defects (RAPDs) compared with the Swinging Flashlight Test (SFT), AP remains uncommon in clinical practice. This study examined barriers to routine use of AP in evaluation of acute vision loss. Methods: (1) Ophthalmologists and optometrists' perceptions of AP were captured via electronic survey. (2) Ophthalmologists were presented with clinical vignettes to assess their use of AP in clinical decision-making. (3) Patients presenting with decreased vision to an ophthalmology urgent care clinic underwent manual SFT and AP screening to evaluate ophthalmologists' perceptions of the device. Results: Surveys indicated that clinicians were “neutral” to “somewhat likely” to use AP. In clinical vignettes, more physicians proceeded with workup for optic nerve pathology when presented with an RAPD by AP than SFT (77% vs 26%, P = 0.003). When SFT and AP results were discordant, more physicians proceeded with workup for optic nerve disease when AP was positive and SFT was negative than vice versa (61% vs 18%, P = 0.008). In the clinical study of 21 patients, 50% of RAPDs detected by AP were not detected by SFT, although ophthalmologists rated AP's usefulness as only “neutral” to “somewhat useful.” Conclusion: Clinicians value pupillary examination and trust AP over SFT; however, widespread adoption and perceived value of AP may depend on its impact on clinical outcomes. Within a comprehensive diagnostic device, AP may be an important tool, but is not necessary to screen for optic nerve disease or evaluate acute vision loss.

Frequent coauthors

  • Resume-aware match score
  • Save to shortlist
  • AI-drafted outreach

See your match with Nicholas J. Volpe

PhdFit ranks faculty by your research interests, methods, and publications — grounded in their actual work, not templates.

  • Free to start
  • No credit card
  • 30-second signup