Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between physical image characteristics and the clinical grading of images of conjunctival redness and to develop an accurate and efficient predictor of clinical redness from the measurements of these images. METHODS: Seventy-two clinicians graded the appearance of 30 images of redness on a 100-point sliding scale with three referent images (at 25, 50, and 75 points) through a World Wide Web-based survey. Using software developed in a commercial computer program, each image was quantified in two ways: by the presence of blood vessel edges, based on the Canny edge-detection algorithm, and by a measure of overall redness, quantified by the relative magnitude of the redness component of each red-green-blue (RGB) pixel. Linear and nonlinear regressors and a Bayesian estimator were used to optimally combine the image characteristics to predict the clinical grades. RESULTS: The clinical judgments of the redness images were highly variable: The average grade range for each image was approximately 55 points, more than half the extent of the entire scale. The median clinical grade was chosen as the most reliable measure of "truth." The median grade was predicted by a weighted linear combination of the edgeness and redness features of each image. The strength of the predicted association was r = 0.976, exceeding the strength of association of all but one of the 72 individual clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical grading of redness images is highly variable. Despite this human variability, easily implemented image-analysis and statistical procedures were able to reliably predict median clinical grades of conjunctival redness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".