MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996683112 · doi:10.1111/j.1755-3768.2019.5391

Automatic classification and triage of diabetic retinopathy from retinal images based on a convolutional neural networks (CNN) method

2019· article· en· W2996683112 on OpenAlexaff
Adrián Galdrán, Hadi Chakor, Abdulaziz Adel Alrushood, Ryad Kobbi, Argyrios Christodoulidis, Jihed Chelbi, M.A. Racine, Ismail Benayed

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)École de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetic retinopathyConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceGrading (engineering)TriageDeep learningRetinalMedicineRetinopathyComputer sciencePopulationDiabetes mellitusMachine learningOptometryOphthalmologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the leading causes of adult vision loss in the developed countries. Epidemiological and demographic factors, including the rising rates of diabetes related to obesity and an aging population, are driving the incidence of diabetic eye complication inexorably higher. Method Deep learning emerges as a powerful tool for analyzing and classifying retinal images in an automatic way, but the classification results depend greatly on the availability of large datasets. As the number of categories and the imbalance ratio increase, the performance of deep learning models diminishes. In the context of DR grading, minority classes (mild and severe DR) are critical to diagnose. Experiments were performed on a real dataset developed at local hospital and at different hospitals around the world. Overall, 42 179 retinal images were obtained from Diagnos database. All images were graded by 3 retinal experts using the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study severity scale (ETDRS). The dataset was built by expanding on 4 categories: R0 or normal, R1 or mild DR, R2 or moderate DR, and R3&R4 or severe and proliferative DR. The data was split 90/10 for training and testing respectively, and an ensemble of Convolutional Neural Networks was trained to perform DR grading. Results The proposed method achieves high accuracy in predicting DR grades, with the R1 class showing lower performance, in line with recently proposed methods. An area under the ROC curve of 0.96 (0.95–0.96) for R0, 0.70 (0.65–0.75) for R1, 0.95 (0.94–0.95) for R2 and 0.92 (0.89–0.96) for R34. Conclusion Comparable to the score of human experts, the deep learning techniques in this study were effective to be applied in clinical use as primary care setting and could be a valuable tool to help primary care triage. Improvement in detection of R1 subjects is needed for further progressing in this area. References 1. He K, Zhang X, Ren S & Sun J (2016): Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 770–778. 2. Krause J et al. (2018): Grader variability and the importance of reference standards for evaluating machine learning models for diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 125 : 1264–1272.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207