MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610870915 · doi:10.2147/opth.s117157

Optic cup segmentation: type-II fuzzy thresholding approach and blood vessel extraction

2017· article· en· W2610870915 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Almazroa, Sami Alodhayb, Kaamran Raahemifar, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical ophthalmology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThresholdingMedicineOphthalmologySegmentationArtificial intelligenceExtraction (chemistry)Computer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceChromatographyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce here a new technique for segmenting optic cup using two-dimensional fundus images. Cup segmentation is the most challenging part of image processing of the optic nerve head due to the complexity of its structure. Using the blood vessels to segment the cup is important. Here, we report on blood vessel extraction using first a top-hat transform and Otsu's segmentation function to detect the curves in the blood vessels (kinks) which indicate the cup boundary. This was followed by an interval type-II fuzzy entropy procedure. Finally, the Hough transform was applied to approximate the cup boundary. The algorithm was evaluated on 550 fundus images from a large dataset, which contained three different sets of images, where the cup was manually marked by six ophthalmologists. On one side, the accuracy of the algorithm was tested on the three image sets independently. The final cup detection accuracy in terms of area and centroid was calculated to be 78.2% of 441 images. Finally, we compared the algorithm performance with manual markings done by the six ophthalmologists. The agreement was determined between the ophthalmologists as well as the algorithm. The best agreement was between ophthalmologists one, two and five in 398 of 550 images, while the algorithm agreed with them in 356 images.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ophthalmologySame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207