MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064636815 · doi:10.1364/boe.5.002215

Detecting abnormality in optic nerve head images using a feature extraction analysis

2014· article· en· W2064636815 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Haogang Zhu, Ali Poostchi, S A Vernon, David P. Crabb

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDalhousie UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsAbnormalityArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionGlaucomaOptic nerveOptical coherence tomographyComputer visionMedicineRadiologyOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging and evaluation of the optic nerve head (ONH) plays an essential part in the detection and clinical management of glaucoma. The morphological characteristics of ONHs vary greatly from person to person and this variability means it is difficult to quantify them in a standardized way. We developed and evaluated a feature extraction approach using shift-invariant wavelet packet and kernel principal component analysis to quantify the shape features in ONH images acquired by scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (Heidelberg Retina Tomograph [HRT]). The methods were developed and tested on 1996 eyes from three different clinical centers. A shape abnormality score (SAS) was developed from extracted features using a Gaussian process to identify glaucomatous abnormality. SAS can be used as a diagnostic index to quantify the overall likelihood of ONH abnormality. Maps showing areas of likely abnormality within the ONH were also derived. Diagnostic performance of the technique, as estimated by ROC analysis, was significantly better than the classification tools currently used in the HRT software - the technique offers the additional advantage of working with all images and is fully automated.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207