MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112648711

Corneal confocal microscopy image quality analysis and validity assessment

2010· article· en· W2112648711 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad A. Dabbah, James Graham, Rayaz A. Malik

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsLMC Diabetes & Endocrinology (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfocal microscopyArtificial intelligenceConfocalCorneaComputer visionComputer scienceSupport vector machineImage qualityMicroscopyBiomedical engineeringPattern recognition (psychology)OpticsMedicineImage (mathematics)Physics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corneal Confocal Microscopy (CCM) image analysis is a new non-invasive and iterative surrogate endpoint to detect, monitor and quantify Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (DPN). This paper presents an automated system that analyses CCM images and assesses their quality for further analysis and quantification. The method is based on a dual-model nerve-fibre detection technique followed by an SVM linear classifier, which uses the area distribution of the response image. A Monte-Carlo analysis has shown a correct recognition rate of 92% on a database of images captured randomly from the cornea at different confocal depths.

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)0.002
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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Explorer (The University of Manchester)Same topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207