MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064202402 · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6346210

Computer-aided diagnosis of proliferative diabetic retinopathy

2012· article· en· W2064202402 on OpenAlexaff
Faraz Oloumi, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan, Anna L. Ells

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic retinopathyHough transformComputer scienceFundus (uterus)Graphical user interfaceOpenness to experienceReceiver operating characteristicArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOphthalmologyMedicineImage (mathematics)Diabetes mellitusMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring the openness of the major temporal arcade (MTA) and how it changes over time could facilitate improved diagnosis and timely treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). We present methods for user-guided modeling and measurement of the openness of the MTA based on a form of the generalized Hough transform for the detection of parabolas, and to compare it with a method of arcade angle measurement. The methods, implemented via a graphical user interface, were tested with retinal fundus images of 10 normal individuals and 15 patients with PDR. The results using the openness parameters of single- and dual-parabolic models as well as the arcade angle measurements indicate areas under the receiver operating characteristics of A(z)= 0.94, 0.87, and 0.84, respectively. The proposed methods should facilitate improved quantitative analysis of the architecture of the MTA, as well as assist in detection, diagnosis, and improved treatment of PDR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207