MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800464885 · doi:10.1117/1.jbo.23.5.056004

Particle swarm optimization method for small retinal vessels detection on multiresolution fundus images

2018· article· en· W2800464885 on OpenAlexaff
Bilal Khomri, Argyrios Christodoulidis, Leila Djerou, Mohamed Chaouki Babahenini, Farida Chériet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Optics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFalse positive paradoxSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceParticle swarm optimizationArtificial intelligenceFundus (uterus)SegmentationComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)CADDiabetic retinopathyImage segmentationAlgorithmRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinal vessel segmentation plays an important role in the diagnosis of eye diseases and is considered as one of the most challenging tasks in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems. The main goal of this study was to propose a method for blood-vessel segmentation that could deal with the problem of detecting vessels of varying diameters in high- and low-resolution fundus images. We proposed to use the particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm to improve the multiscale line detection (MSLD) method. The PSO algorithm was applied to find the best arrangement of scales in the MSLD method and to handle the problem of multiscale response recombination. The performance of the proposed method was evaluated on two low-resolution (DRIVE and STARE) and one high-resolution fundus (HRF) image datasets. The data include healthy (H) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) cases. The proposed approach improved the sensitivity rate against the MSLD by 4.7% for the DRIVE dataset and by 1.8% for the STARE dataset. For the high-resolution dataset, the proposed approach achieved 87.09% sensitivity rate, whereas the MSLD method achieves 82.58% sensitivity rate at the same specificity level. When only the smallest vessels were considered, the proposed approach improved the sensitivity rate by 11.02% and by 4.42% for the healthy and the diabetic cases, respectively. Integrating the proposed method in a comprehensive CAD system for DR screening would allow the reduction of false positives due to missed small vessels, misclassified as red lesions.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical OpticsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207