MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028358246 · doi:10.1002/jbio.202000042

Pseudo‐real‐time retinal layer segmentation for high‐resolution adaptive optics optical coherence tomography

2020· article· en· W3028358246 on OpenAlexafffund
Worawee Janpongsri, Joey Huang, Ringo Ng, Daniel J. Wahl, Marinko V. Šarunic, Yifan Jian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biophotonics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Eye InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyPixelSegmentationComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAdaptive opticsImage resolutionOpticsRetinalImage segmentationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a pseudo-real-time retinal layer segmentation for high-resolution Sensorless Adaptive Optics-Optical Coherence Tomography (SAO-OCT). Our pseudo-real-time segmentation method is based on Dijkstra's algorithm that uses the intensity of pixels and the vertical gradient of the image to find the minimum cost in a geometric graph formulation within a limited search region. It segments six retinal layer boundaries in an iterative process according to their order of prominence. The segmentation time is strongly correlated to the number of retinal layers to be segmented. Our program permits en face images to be extracted during data acquisition to guide the depth specific focus control and depth dependent aberration correction for high-resolution SAO-OCT systems. The average processing times for our entire pipeline for segmenting six layers in a retinal B-scan of 496 × 400 and 240 × 400 pixels are around 25.60 and 13.76 ms, respectively. When reducing the number of layers segmented to only two layers, the time required for a 240 × 400 pixel image is 8.26 ms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiophotonicsSame topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207