Comparison of subjective and objective methods to determine the retinal arterio-venous ratio using fundus photography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the inter and intra observer variability of subjective grading of the retinal arterio-venous ratio (AVR) using a visual grading and to compare the subjectively derived grades to an objective method using a semi-automated computer program. METHODS: Following intraocular pressure and blood pressure measurements all subjects underwent dilated fundus photography. 86 monochromatic retinal images with the optic nerve head centred (52 healthy volunteers) were obtained using a Zeiss FF450+ fundus camera. Arterio-venous ratios (AVR), central retinal artery equivalent (CRAE) and central retinal vein equivalent (CRVE) were calculated on three separate occasions by one single observer semi-automatically using the software VesselMap (ImedosSystems, Jena, Germany). Following the automated grading, three examiners graded the AVR visually on three separate occasions in order to assess their agreement. RESULTS: Reproducibility of the semi-automatic parameters was excellent (ICCs: 0.97 (CRAE); 0.985 (CRVE) and 0.952 (AVR)). However, visual grading of AVR showed inter grader differences as well as discrepancies between subjectively derived and objectively calculated AVR (all p<0.000001). CONCLUSION: Grader education and experience leads to inter-grader differences but more importantly, subjective grading is not capable to pick up subtle differences across healthy individuals and does not represent true AVR when compared with an objective assessment method. Technology advancements mean we no longer rely on opthalmoscopic evaluation but can capture and store fundus images with retinal cameras, enabling us to measure vessel calibre more accurately compared to visual estimation; hence it should be integrated in optometric practise for improved accuracy and reliability of clinical assessments of retinal vessel calibres.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".