MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Compressed 3D and 2D digital images versus standard 3D slide film for the evaluation of glaucomatous optic nerve features

2017· article· en· W2747976579 on OpenAlexafffund
Simrenjeet Sandhu, Christopher J. Rudnisky, Sourabh Arora, Faazil Kassam, Gordon R. Douglas, M. Edwards, Karin Verstraten, Beatrice K. Wong, Karim F. Damji

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCNIBCapital HealthGlaucoma Research Foundation
KeywordsNotchingMedicineGlaucomaOptic discOptic nerveGold standard (test)Artificial intelligenceStereoscopyDigital imagingOptic diskDigital imageOphthalmologyComputer scienceRadiologyImage processingMaterials scienceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SYNOPSIS: Clinicians can feel confident compressed three-dimensional digital (3DD) and two-dimensional digital (2DD) imaging evaluating important features of glaucomatous disc damage is comparable to the previous gold standard of stereoscopic slide film photography, supporting the use of digital imaging for teleglaucoma applications. BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 3DD and 2DD photography with stereo slide film in detecting glaucomatous optic nerve head features. METHODS: This prospective, multireader validation study imaged and compressed glaucomatous, suspicious or normal optic nerves using a ratio of 16:1 into 3DD and 2DD (1024×1280 pixels) and compared both to stereo slide film. The primary outcome was vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) and secondary outcomes, including disc haemorrhage and notching, were also evaluated. Each format was graded randomly by four glaucoma specialists. A protocol was implemented for harmonising data including consensus-based interpretation as needed. RESULTS: There were 192 eyes imaged with each format. The mean VCDR for slide, 3DD and 2DD was 0.59±0.20, 0.60±0.18 and 0.62±0.17, respectively. The agreement of VCDR for 3DD versus film was κ=0.781 and for 2DD versus film was κ=0.69. Sensitivity (95.2%), specificity (95.2%) and area under the curve (AUC; 0.953) of 3DD imaging to detect notching were better (p=0.03) than for 2DD (90.5%; 88.6%; AUC=0.895). Similarly, sensitivity (77.8%), specificity (98.9%) and AUC (0.883) of 3DD to detect disc haemorrhage were better (p=0.049) than for 2DD (44.4%; 99.5%; AUC=0.72). There was no difference between 3DD and 2DD imaging in detecting disc tilt (p=0.7), peripapillary atrophy (p=0.16), grey crescent (p=0.1) or pallor (p=0.43), although 3D detected sloping better (p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Both 3DD and 2DD imaging demonstrates excellent reproducibility in comparison to stereo slide film with experts evaluating VCDR, notching and disc haemorrhage. 3DD in this study was slightly more accurate than 2DD for evaluating disc haemorrhage, notching and sloping.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207