Colour versus grey-scale display of images on high-resolution spectral OCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether colour or grey-scale images from high-resolution spectral optical coherence tomography (OCT) are superior in visualising clinically important details of retinal structures. METHODS: Patients with macular pathologies were imaged using spectral OCT (OTI, Toronto, Canada). Two reviewers independently analysed the retinal structures and pathologies and graded them on a four-point scale on the basis of the visibility. A third reviewer masked to the results then reviewed images where there was a different score for colour versus grey scale. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed the grey-scale image to be significantly better in visualising the details of epiretinal membrane, photoreceptor and retinal pigment epithelium layer morphology than the colour scale image (p = 0.00088-0.0006). In 16.17% of eyes, the colour image led to the false impression of photoreceptor disruption. CONCLUSION: Grey-scale images are qualitatively superior to the colour-scale images on high-resolution spectral OCT. Colour images can be misleading, as the displayed colours are false colours, and the observer may see a dramatic change in colour and interpret that as a large change in the OCT reflectivity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".