MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051455543 · doi:10.1089/tmj.2006.12.66

Computer-based Real-Time Analysis in Mobile Ocular Screening

2006· article· en· W2051455543 on OpenAlexaff
Ying-Ling Chen, James W. Lewis, Natalie C. Kerr, Ross A. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueTelemedicine Journal and e-Health · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxTelemedicineComputer scienceGrading (engineering)MedicineArtificial intelligenceDigital imagePredictive valueComputer visionOptometryImage processingImage (mathematics)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile ocular telemedicine is potentially an effective method to provide service in medically underserved areas and to screen large populations for abnormalities. Currently, digital images are acquired, stored, and transferred to readers for evaluation, after which the results are provided to the subjects. The transfer of large image files and the timeliness of the subsequent reading of images are significant factors for practical implementation of effective telemedicine screening. This work examines the feasibility of in situ real-time computer analysis of digital images to determine and classify the image results as normal and abnormal. This retrospective study used a photoscreening database of 360 patients ranging in ages from 6 months to 18 years. Computer analysis automatically classified the binocular photorefraction (PR) images, and these PR results were compared to those of the subjective clinical eye examinations provided. With an average processing time of approximately 15 seconds per examinee, the analysis found that the PR results can be categorized as: a positive group that requires referral (186 cases) with a predictive value of 98.9% (2 false-positives); a negative group (144 cases) with a predictive value of 89.6% (15 false-negatives); and an uncertain group (30 cases or 8.3%) that required resolution by readers. The real-time analysis code reduces by approximately 92% the manpower for image grading and electronic transmission at this stage of ocular evaluation. These results indicate the feasibility of this approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTelemedicine Journal and e-HealthSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207