Combined Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening, Using Retina Photographs and Tear Fluid Proteomics Biomarkers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. It is estimated that 347 million people suffer from diabetes mellitus (DM), and almost 5 million are blind due to diabetic retinopathy (DR). The progression of DR can be slowed down with early diagnosis and treatment. Therefore our aim was to develop a novel automated method for DR screening. Methods. 52 patients with diabetes mellitus were enrolled into the project. Of all patients, 39 had signs of DR. Digital retina images and tear fluid samples were taken from each eye. The results from the tear fluid proteomics analysis and from digital microaneurysm (MA) detection on fundus images were used as the input of a machine learning system. Results. MA detection method alone resulted in 0.84 sensitivity and 0.81 specificity. Using the proteomics data for analysis 0.87 sensitivity and 0.68 specificity values were achieved. The combined data analysis integrated the features of the proteomics data along with the number of detected MAs in the associated image and achieved sensitivity/specificity values of 0.93/0.78. Conclusions. As the two different types of data represent independent and complementary information on the outcome, the combined model resulted in a reliable screening method that is comparable to the requirements of DR screening programs applied in clinical routine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".