Rapid classification of glaucomatous fundus images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a new method for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and use it to classify glaucoma from fundus images. This method integrates reinforcement learning along with supervised learning and uses it for transfer learning. The training method uses hill climbing techniques via two different climber types, namely, "random movement" and "random detection," integrated with a supervised learning model through a stochastic gradient descent with momentum model. The model was trained and tested using the Drishti-GS and RIM-ONE-r2 datasets having glaucomatous and normal fundus images. The performance for prediction was tested by transfer learning on five CNN architectures, namely, GoogLeNet, DenseNet-201, NASNet, VGG-19, and Inception-Resnet v2. A five-fold classification was used for evaluating the performance, and high sensitivities while maintaining high accuracies were achieved. Of the models tested, the DenseNet-201 architecture performed the best in terms of sensitivity and area under the curve. This method of training allows transfer learning on small datasets and can be applied for tele-ophthalmology applications including training with local datasets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".