MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225783249 · doi:10.3928/1542-8877-20050701-12

The Effect of Compression on Clinical Diagnosis of Glaucoma Based on Non-analyzed Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Images

2005· article· en· W2225783249 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Lyne Bélair, Alvine Fansi, Denise Descovich, Paul Harasymowycz

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retina · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOphthalmoscopyGlaucomaConfocalScanning laser ophthalmoscopyOptometryOphthalmologyLaser scanningMedicineLaserOpticsRetinalPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different image compression formats of non-analyzed Heidelberg Retina Tomography (HRT; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) images on the diagnosis of glaucoma by ophthalmologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three topographic and reflectance images taken with the HRT representing different levels of disease were transformed using nine different compression formats. Three independent ophthalmologists, masked as to contour line and stereometric parameters, classified the original and compressed HRT images as normal, suspected glaucoma, or glaucoma, and Kappa agreement coefficients were calculated. RESULTS: The Tagged Image File Format had the largest file size and the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) 2000 format had the smallest size. The highest Kappa coefficient value was 1.00 for all ophthalmologists using the Tagged Image File Format. Kappa values for JPEG formats were all in the range of good to excellent agreement. Kappa values were lower for Portable Network Graphic and Graphics Interchange Format compression formats. CONCLUSION: Image compression with JPEG 2000 at a ratio of 20:1 provided sufficient quality for glaucoma analysis in conjunction with a relatively small image size format, and may prove to be attractive for HRT telemedicine applications. Further clinical studies validating the usefulness of interpreting non-analyzed HRT images are required.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmic surgery, lasers & imaging retinaSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207