Uncertainty aware and explainable diagnosis of retinal disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning methods for ophthalmic diagnosis have shown considerable success in tasks like segmentation and classification. However, their widespread application is limited due to the models being opaque and vulnerable to making a wrong decision in complicated cases. Explainability methods show the features that a system used to make prediction while uncertainty awareness is the ability of a system to highlight when it is not sure about the decision. This is one of the first studies using uncertainty and explanations for informed clinical decision making. We perform uncertainty analysis of a deep learning model for diagnosis of four retinal diseases - age-related macular degeneration (AMD), central serous retinopathy (CSR), diabetic retinopathy (DR), and macular hole (MH) using images from a publicly available (OCTID) dataset. Monte Carlo (MC) dropout is used at the test time to generate a distribution of parameters and the predictions approximate the predictive posterior of a Bayesian model. A threshold is computed using the distribution and uncertain cases can be referred to the ophthalmologist thus avoiding an erroneous diagnosis. The features learned by the model are visualized using a proven attribution method from a previous study. The effects of uncertainty on model performance and the relationship between uncertainty and explainability are discussed in terms of clinical significance. The uncertainty information along with the heatmaps make the system more trustworthy for use in clinical settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".