MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625882437 · doi:10.4236/jbise.2017.105b010

Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Using Bag of Words Approach

2017· article· en· W2625882437 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Science and Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic retinopathyComputer scienceFundus (uterus)Artificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)RetinopathyComputer visionImage processingMedicineOphthalmologyImage (mathematics)Diabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imaging and computer vision systems offer the ability to study quantitatively on human physiology. On contrary, manual interpretation requires tremendous amount of work, expertise and excessive processing time. This work presents an algorithm that integrates image processing and machine learning to diagnose diabetic retinopathy from retinal fundus images. This automated method classifies diabetic retinopathy (or absence thereof) based on a dataset collected from some publicly available database such as DRIDB0, DRIDB1, MESSIDOR, STARE and HRF. Our approach utilizes bag of words model with Speeded Up Robust Features and demonstrate classification over 180 fundus images containing lesions (hard exudates, soft exudates, microaneurysms, and haemorrhages) and non-lesions with an accuracy of 94.4%, precision of 94%, recall and f1-score of 94% and AUC of 95%. Thus, the proposed approach presents a path toward precise and automated diabetic retinopathy diagnosis on a massive scale.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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