Bibliographic record
Abstract
Timely intervention for diabetic retinopathy (DR) lessens the possibility of blindness and can save considerable costs to health systems. To ensure that interventions are timely and effective requires methods of screening and monitoring pathological changes, including assessing outcomes. Fractal analysis, one method that has been studied for assessing DR, is potentially relevant in today's world of telemedicine because it provides objective indices from digital images of complex patterns such as are seen in retinal vasculature, which is affected in DR. We introduce here a protocol to distinguish between nonproliferative (NPDR) and proliferative (PDR) changes in retinal vasculature using a fractal analysis method known as local connected dimension (D(conn)) analysis. The major finding is that compared to other fractal analysis methods, D(conn) analysis better differentiates NPDR from PDR (p = 0.05). In addition, we are the first to show that fractal analysis can be used to differentiate between NPDR and PDR using automated vessel identification. Overall, our results suggest this protocol can complement existing methods by including an automated and objective measure obtainable at a lower level of expertise that experts can then use in screening for and monitoring DR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".