MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082677554 · doi:10.1364/oe.17.023719

Intra-retinal layer segmentation in optical coherence tomography images

2009· article· en· W2082677554 on OpenAlexafffund
Akshaya Mishra, Alexander Wong, Kostadinka Bizheva, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyRetinalSegmentationSpeckle noiseArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSpeckle patternComputer visionOpticsImage segmentationImage resolutionContrast (vision)PhysicsOphthalmologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinal layer thickness, evaluated as a function of spatial position from optical coherence tomography (OCT) images is an important diagnostics marker for many retinal diseases. However, due to factors such as speckle noise, low image contrast, irregularly shaped morphological features such as retinal detachments, macular holes, and drusen, accurate segmentation of individual retinal layers is difficult. To address this issue, a computer method for retinal layer segmentation from OCT images is presented. An efficient two-step kernel-based optimization scheme is employed to first identify the approximate locations of the individual layers, which are then refined to obtain accurate segmentation results for the individual layers. The performance of the algorithm was tested on a set of retinal images acquired in-vivo from healthy and diseased rodent models with a high speed, high resolution OCT system. Experimental results show that the proposed approach provides accurate segmentation for OCT images affected by speckle noise, even in sub-optimal conditions of low image contrast and presence of irregularly shaped structural features in the OCT images.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations219
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207