MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2672984453 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2017.7950487

Multiple instance learning for age-related macular degeneration diagnosis in optical coherence tomography images

2017· article· en· W2672984453 on OpenAlexaff
Donghuan Lu, Wei‐Guang Ding, Andrew Merkur, Marinko V. Šarunic, Mirza Faisal Beg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacular degenerationOptical coherence tomographyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRetinal pigment epitheliumComputer visionFeature (linguistics)Feature extractionTomographyPattern recognition (psychology)RetinalOphthalmologyMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a major cause of irreversible blindness and loss of vision in people over 50 years old. Fluid (or cyst) regions such as intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and sub-retinal pigment epithelium (sub-RPE), have different tissue appearance in Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) images compared to normal retina tissue and are a defining feature of AMD. However, diagnosis of AMD requires an expert to go through every slice (B-scan) of the OCT volume to find whether it contains fluid. This is a tedious and time consuming task. In this paper, we proposed a new framework to help diagnosing AMD via automatically detecting the B-scan frames containing fluid regions. By converting each slice into a bag of features, we introduce multiple instance learning algorithm for the B-scan classification. Cross validation experiments show that the result of our framework have a good classification accuracy with F-measure above 0.85 and the multiple instance random forest algorithm we proposed outperforms other state-of-the-art algorithms.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207