A comparison of digital retinal image quality among photographers with different levels of training using a non-mydriatic fundus camera
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
PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality of digital retinal images taken by three photographers with different levels of photographic training, using a non-mydriatic fundus camera. METHODS: This study compares 45-degree digital retinal images taken with a non-mydriatic fundus camera by three different photographers with different levels of photographic training: (I) A professional ophthalmic photographer with 20 years of experience; (2) a non-professional photographer with 2 days of photographic training and experience with 50 patients; (3) a non-professional photographer with 1 hour of photographic training and experience with 10 patients. The quality of the photographs was evaluated by the consensus of two retina specialists. RESULTS: Sixty-four (64) eyes of 33 subjects were imaged by the three photographers for a total of 192 images. Thirty-four eyes were photographed in the non-dilated state. The trained ophthalmic photographer and the two non-professional photographers did not have statistically significant differences in image quality based on the image evaluations. (Chi-square P-value: 0.57). This finding was consistent for eyes in both the non-dilated and dilated state. CONCLUSIONS: Fundus image quality for images taken with a non-mydriatic camera were not significantly different among three photographers with different levels of training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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