Comparison of super-resolution algorithms applied to retinal images
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
A critical challenge in biomedical imaging is to optimally balance the trade-off among image resolution, signal-to-noise ratio, and acquisition time. Acquiring a high-resolution image is possible; however, it is either expensive or time consuming or both. Resolution is also limited by the physical properties of the imaging device, such as the nature and size of the input source radiation and the optics of the device. Super-resolution (SR), which is an off-line approach for improving the resolution of an image, is free of these trade-offs. Several methodologies, such as interpolation, frequency domain, regularization, and learning-based approaches, have been developed over the past several years for SR of natural images. We review some of these methods and demonstrate the positive impact expected from SR of retinal images and investigate the performance of various SR techniques. We use a fundus image as an example for simulations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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