MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514774366 · doi:10.1007/s40846-016-0152-x

An Automated Approach for Localizing Retinal Blood Vessels in Confocal Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy Fundus Images

2016· article· en· W2514774366 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Kromer, Sebastian Boelefahr, M. Klemm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical and Biological Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOphthalmoscopyFundus (uterus)ConfocalRetinalFundus cameraScanning laser ophthalmoscopyOphthalmologyLaser scanningLaserComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer visionOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we present a rules-based method for localizing retinal blood vessels in confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) images and evaluate its feasibility. A total of 31 healthy participants (17 female; mean age: 64.0 ± 8.2 years) were studied using manual and automatic segmentation. High-resolution peripapillary scan acquisition cSLO images were acquired. The automated segmentation method consisted of image pre-processing for gray-level homogenization and blood vessel enhancement (morphological opening operation, Gaussian filter, morphological Top-Hat transformation), binary thresholding (entropy-based thresholding operation), and removal of falsely detected isolated vessel pixels. The proposed algorithm was first tested on the publically available dataset DRIVE, which contains color fundus photographs, and compared to performance results from the literature. Good results were obtained. Monochromatic cSLO images segmented using the proposed method were compared to those manually segmented by two independent observers. For the algorithm, a sensitivity of 0.7542, specificity of 0.8607, and accuracy of 0.8508 were obtained. For the two independent observers, a sensitivity of 0.6579, specificity of 0.9699, and accuracy of 0.9401 were obtained. The results demonstrate that it is possible to localize vessels in monochromatic cSLO images of the retina using a rules-based approach. The performance results are inferior to those obtained using fundus photography, which could be due to the nature of the technology.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical and Biological EngineeringSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207