MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793314794 · doi:10.1117/12.2292095

Intra-retinal segmentation of optical coherence tomography images using active contours with a dynamic programming initialization and an adaptive weighting strategy

2018· article· en· W2793314794 on OpenAlexaff
Peyman Gholami, Priyanka Roy, Mohana Kuppuswamy Parthasarathy, Abbas Ommani, John Zelek, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive contour modelArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionOptical coherence tomographyWeightingLevel set (data structures)InitializationSegmentationRetinalRobustness (evolution)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationSpeckle noiseLevel set methodSpeckle patternOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinal layer shape and thickness are one of the main indicators in the diagnosis of ocular diseases. We present an active contour approach to localize intra-retinal boundaries of eight retinal layers from OCT images. The initial locations of the active contour curves are determined using a Viterbi dynamic programming method. The main energy function is a Chan-Vese active contour model without edges. A boundary term is added to the energy function using an adaptive weighting method to help curves converge to the retinal layer edges more precisely, after evolving of curves towards boundaries, in final iterations. A wavelet-based denoising method is used to remove speckle from OCT images while preserving important details and edges. The performance of the proposed method was tested on a set of healthy and diseased eye SD-OCT images. The experimental results, compared between the proposed method and the manual segmentation, which was determined by an optometrist, indicate that our method has obtained an average of 95.29%, 92.78%, 95.86%, 87.93%, 82.67%, and 90.25% respectively, for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, Jaccard Index, and Dice Similarity Coefficient over all segmented layers. These results justify the robustness of the proposed method in determining the location of different retinal layers.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207