MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120044285 · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2020.12.034

Quantification of Key Retinal Features in Early and Late Age-Related Macular Degeneration Using Deep Learning

2021· article· en· W3120044285 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bart Liefers, Paul Taylor, Abdulrahman Alsaedi, Clare Bailey, Konstantinos Balaskas, Narendra Dhingra, Filipa Gomes Rodrigues, Cristina González-Gonzalo, Tjebo Heeren, Andrew Lotery, Philipp L. Müller, Abraham Olvera‐Barrios, Bobby Paul, Roy Schwartz, Darren Thomas, Alasdair Warwick, Adnan Tufail, Clara I. Sá‎nchez

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovartis Pharmaceuticals CanadaHeidelberg EngineeringRadboud UniversiteitAllerganDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftBayerNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNovartisWellcome TrustRoche
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceReceiver operating characteristicSegmentationIntraclass correlationSørensen–Dice coefficientDeep learningMacular degenerationFalse positive paradoxComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)MedicineImage segmentationMachine learningOphthalmologyStatisticsReproducibilityMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We sought to develop and validate a deep learning model for segmentation of 13 features associated with neovascular and atrophic age-related macular degeneration (AMD). DESIGN: Development and validation of a deep-learning model for feature segmentation. METHODS: Data for model development were obtained from 307 optical coherence tomography volumes. Eight experienced graders manually delineated all abnormalities in 2712 B-scans. A deep neural network was trained with these data to perform voxel-level segmentation of the 13 most common abnormalities (features). For evaluation, 112 B-scans from 112 patients with a diagnosis of neovascular AMD were annotated by 4 independent observers. The main outcome measures were Dice score, intraclass correlation coefficient, and free-response receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: On 11 of 13 features, the model obtained a mean Dice score of 0.63 ± 0.15, compared with 0.61 ± 0.17 for the observers. The mean intraclass correlation coefficient for the model was 0.66 ± 0.22, compared with 0.62 ± 0.21 for the observers. Two features were not evaluated quantitatively because of a lack of data. Free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the model scored similar or higher sensitivity per false positives compared with the observers. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the automatic segmentation matches that of experienced graders for most features, exceeding human performance for some features. The quantified parameters provided by the model can be used in the current clinical routine and open possibilities for further research into treatment response outside clinical trials.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations62
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207