MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057614943 · doi:10.5539/cis.v7n2p48

Automatic Exudate Detection Using Eye Fundus Image Analysis Due to Diabetic Retinopathy

2014· article· en· W2057614943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nasr Y. Garaibeh, Mohammad A. Al-Jarrah

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic retinopathyBlindnessFundus (uterus)Diabetes mellitusComputer scienceRetinopathyMedicineOphthalmologyRobustness (evolution)ExudateRetinaSegmentationArtificial intelligenceDiseaseOptometryComputer visionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetic retinopathy (damage to the retina) is a disease caused by complications of diabetes, which can eventually lead to blindness. It is an ocular manifestation of diabetes, a systemic disease, which affects up to 80 percent of all patients who have had diabetes for 10 years or more. Despite these intimidating statistics, research indicates that at least 90% of these new cases could be reduced if there was proper and vigilant treatment and monitoring of the patient eyes. The longer a person has diabetes, the higher his or her chances of developing diabetic retinopathy. In this paper, we introduced a new method for eye fundus image analysis, based on exudate segmentation. The proposed algorithm detects the existence of exudates and measures its distribution. In this paper, we classified images of eye fundus into no-exudate or have exudates. This initial classification helps physicians to initiate a treatment process for infected patients. The algorithm is tested using DIARETDB0. The results proved the reliability and robustness of algorithm.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207