Automated Retroillumination Photography Analysis for Objective Assessment of Fuchs Corneal Dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Retroillumination photography analysis is an objective tool for the assessment of the number and distribution of guttae in eyes affected with Fuchs corneal dystrophy (FCD). Current protocols include manual processing of images; here, we assess validity and interrater reliability of automated analysis across various levels of FCD severity. METHODS: Retroillumination photographs of 97 FCD-affected corneas were acquired, and total counts of guttae were previously summated manually. For each cornea, a single image was loaded into ImageJ software. We reduced color variability and subtracted background noise. Reflection of light from each gutta was identified as a local area of maximum intensity and counted automatically. Noise tolerance level was titrated for each cornea by examining a small region of each image with automated overlay to ensure appropriate coverage of individual guttae. We tested interrater reliability of automated counts of guttae across a spectrum of clinical and educational experience. RESULTS: A set of 97 retroillumination photographs was analyzed. Clinical severity as measured by a modified Krachmer scale ranged from a severity level of 1 to 5 in the set of analyzed corneas. Automated counts by an ophthalmologist correlated strongly with Krachmer grading (R = 0.79) and manual counts (R = 0.88). Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated strong correlation at 0.924 (95% CI, 0.870-0.958) among cases analyzed by 3 students, and 0.869 (95% CI, 0.797-0.918) among cases for which images were analyzed by an ophthalmologist and 2 students. CONCLUSIONS: Automated retroillumination photography analysis allows for grading of FCD severity with high resolution across a spectrum of disease severity.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".