MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171573113 · doi:10.1364/boe.426093

Framework for quantitative three-dimensional choroidal vasculature analysis using optical coherence tomography

2021· article· en· W3171573113 on OpenAlexaff
Ashish Saxena, Xinwen Yao, Damon Wing Kee Wong, Jacqueline Chua, Marcus Ang, Quan V. Hoang, Rupesh Agrawal, Michaël J. A. Girard, Chui Ming Gemmy Cheung, Leopold Schmetterer, Bingyao Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Optics Express · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersSingapore Eye Research InstituteNanyang Technological UniversityNational Medical Research CouncilNational Research Foundation SingaporeAgency for Science, Technology and ResearchDuke-NUS Medical School
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyChoroidRetinalRetinal pigment epitheliumOphthalmologyMacular degenerationMaculopathySegmentationTomographyRetinaComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligenceOpticsRadiologyRetinopathyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choroidal vasculature plays an important role in the pathogenesis of retinal diseases, such as myopic maculopathy, age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, central serous chorioretinopathy, and ocular inflammatory diseases. Current optical coherence tomography (OCT) technology provides three-dimensional visualization of the choroidal angioarchitecture; however, quantitative measures remain challenging. Here, we propose and validate a framework to segment and quantify the choroidal vasculature from a prototype swept-source OCT (PLEX Elite 9000, Carl Zeiss Meditec, USA) using a 3×3 mm scan protocol centered on the macula. Enface images referenced from the retinal pigment epithelium were reconstructed from the volumetric data. The boundaries of the choroidal volume were automatically identified by tracking the choroidal vessel feature structure over the depth, and a selective sliding window was applied for segmenting the vessels adaptively from attenuation-corrected enface images. We achieved a segmentation accuracy of 96% ± 1% as compared with manual annotation, and a dice coefficient of 0.83 ± 0.04 for repeatability. Using this framework on both control (0.00 D to -2.00 D) and highly myopic (-8.00 D to -11.00 D) eyes, we report a decrease in choroidal vessel volume (p<0.001) in eyes with high myopia.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.346
Teacher spread0.308 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Optics ExpressSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207