MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122433671 · doi:10.1109/imtc.2005.1604488

Automatic Detection of Features in Ultrasound Images of the Eye

2006· article· en· W2122433671 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Youmaran, P. Dicorato, R. Munger, Thomas E. Hall, Andy Adler

Bibliographic record

Venue2005 IEEE Instrumentationand Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceGlaucomaComputer scienceIRIS (biosensor)Computer visionUltrasoundSpeckle noiseSpeckle patternTemplate matchingCorneaPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)MedicineOphthalmologyRadiologyBiometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In closed angled glaucoma, fluid pressure in the eye increases because of inadequate fluid flow between the iris and the cornea. One important technique to assess patients at risk of glaucoma is to analyze ultrasound images of the eye to detect the structural changes. Currently, these images are analyzed manually. We propose an algorithm to automatically identify clinically important features in the ultrasound image of the eye. The main challenge is stable detection of features in the presence of ultrasound speckle noise; the algorithm addresses this using multiscale analysis and template matching. Tests were performed by comparison of results with eighty images of glaucoma patients and normals against the landmarks identified by a trained technologist. In 5% of cases, the algorithm could not analyze the images; in the remaining cases, features were correctly identified (within 97.5 mum) in 97% of images. This work shows promise as a technique to improve the efficiency of clinical interpretation of ultrasound images of the eye

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)0.003
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2005 IEEE Instrumentationand Measurement Technology Conference ProceedingsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207