MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947820692 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.13288

Use of Convolutional Neural Network for Fully Automated Segmentation of Hard Exudates in Retinal Images

2019· article· en· W2947820692 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Aidan Lochbihler

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSegmentationDiabetic retinopathySørensen–Dice coefficientDeep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Process (computing)BlindnessComputer visionPath (computing)Image segmentationMedicineImage (mathematics)Diabetes mellitusOptometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetic retinopathy (DR), is a complication with diabetes caused by damaged blood vessels in the back of the retina. DR affects 126.6 million people around the world and is the leading cause of blindness. Hard exudates are a type of lesion caused by the damaged blood vessels and are an early marker for DR. In this research, a fully automatic deep learning method has been developed that is able to delineate hard exudate lesions in retinal images. This allows the lesion volume to be calculated and thus determine DR severity. This technology would remove the need for doctors in the diagnosis process, therefore making the diagnosis faster and more accessible to people around the world. Our dataset consisted of 58 images and was used to train a fully convolutional neural network with a U-net architecture. The U-net consists of a contracting path followed by a symmetric expansive path that was used to learn features of the images. These features were then used to differentiate hard exudates from regular tissue allowing them to be segmented. After creating the model 26 images were used for testing. Results of the U-net model showed a Dice similarity coefficient of 67.23 ± 13.60%, a specificity of 99.74 ± 0.25%, and precision of 75.87 ± 18.14% when comparing the algorithm generated images to the manually segmented ground truths. These results show that the model is precisely delineating the hard exudates and therefore is a viable way to diagnose the severity of DR.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207