Digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy in the James Bay Cree
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates a single, 45-degree fundus image from a non-mydriatic camera for the triage of subjects at risk for diabetic retinopathy. A complete retinal assessment by a retina specialist was the main comparator for the camera. Inter-observer agreements were calculated for the reading of digital images with different grades of retinopathy. Two hundred eyes of 100 consecutive subjects were evaluated as part of the James Bay diabetic retinopathy screening project; 62% of subjects had no retinopathy, 12% had microaneurysms only, 24% had non-proliferative retinopathy, 5% had clinically significant macular edema (CSME), and 2% had proliferative disease (PDR). The Kappa statistic for two independent observers was 0.85 (p < 0.001) for the identification of retinopathy from the digital images. The sensitivity of the digital camera for the evaluation of any retinopathy was 84.4%, for CSME and/or PDR it was over 90%. The use of a single digital retinal image for the evaluation of diabetic retinopathy was performed with a high degree of inter-observer concordance and a high degree of sensitivity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it