MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096863168 · doi:10.1167/jov.20.11.255

Learning from few examples: Classifying sex from retinal images

2020· article· en· W3096863168 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Berk, Gülcenur Özturan, David Maberley, Özgür Yılmaz, İpek Oruç

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceFundus (uterus)Machine learningDeep learningUsabilityArtificial neural networkPipeline (software)Pattern recognition (psychology)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning (DL) techniques have seen tremendous interest in medical imaging, particularly in the use of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for the development of automated diagnostic tools. The facility of its non-invasive acquisition makes retinal fundus imaging particularly amenable to such automated approaches. Recent work in the analysis of fundus images using CNNs relies on access to massive datasets for training and validation, composed of hundreds of thousands of images. However, data residency and data privacy restrictions stymie the applicability of this approach in medical settings where patient confidentiality is a mandate. Here, we showcase preliminary results for the performance of DL on small datasets to classify patient sex from fundus images — a trait thought not to be present or quantifiable in fundus images until recently. Specifically, we fine-tune a Resnet-152 model whose last layer has been modified to a fully-connected layer for two-class classification. We use stochastic gradient descent to train the model on 1706 retinal fundus images from 853 patients of known sex. We report a test error of 65% on the trained model and area under the curve of the receiving operator characteristic of 0.668. In addition, we analyze ensembles of such neural networks, examining how both ensembling method and the number of models in the ensemble impact classification performance. These results highlight usability and feasibility of DL methods when data is a limiting factor for automated analysis, and suggest a simple pipeline available to non-expert practitioners of DL.

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)0.001
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 score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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