MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075258965 · doi:10.1097/ico.0000000000000152

Fully Automated, Semiautomated, and Manual Morphometric Analysis of Corneal Subbasal Nerve Plexus in Individuals With and Without Diabetes

2014· article· en· W2075258965 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCornea · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNerve plexusOphthalmologyMedicinePlexusDiabetes mellitusOptometryAnatomyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the association, agreement, and detection capability of manual, semiautomated, and fully automated methods of corneal nerve fiber length (CNFL) quantification of the human corneal subbasal nerve plexus (SNP). METHODS: Thirty-three participants with diabetes and 17 healthy controls underwent laser scanning corneal confocal microscopy. Eight central images of the SNP were selected for each participant and analyzed using manual (CCMetrics), semiautomated (NeuronJ), and fully automated (ACCMetrics) software to quantify the CNFL. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, mean CNFL values quantified by CCMetrics, NeuronJ, and ACCMetrics were 17.4 ± 4.3 mm/mm, 16.0 ± 3.9 mm/mm, and 16.5 ± 3.6 mm/mm, respectively (P < 0.01). CNFL quantified using CCMetrics was significantly higher than those obtained by NeuronJ and ACCMetrics (P < 0.05). The 3 methods were highly correlated (correlation coefficients 0.87-0.98, P < 0.01). The intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.87 for ACCMetrics versus NeuronJ and 0.86 for ACCMetrics versus CCMetrics. Bland-Altman plots showed good agreement between the manual, semiautomated, and fully automated analyses of CNFL. A small underestimation of CNFL was observed using ACCMetrics with increasing the amount of nerve tissue. All 3 methods were able to detect CNFL depletion in diabetic participants (P < 0.05) and in those with peripheral neuropathy as defined by the Toronto criteria, compared with healthy controls (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Automated quantification of CNFL provides comparable neuropathy detection ability to manual and semiautomated methods. Because of its speed, objectivity, and consistency, fully automated analysis of CNFL might be advantageous in studies of diabetic neuropathy.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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