Utilization of deep learning to quantify fluid volume of neovascular age-related macular degeneration patients based on swept-source OCT imaging: The ONTARIO study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the predictive ability of a deep learning-based algorithm to determine long-term best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCVA) outcomes in neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nARMD) patients using baseline swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and OCT-angiography (OCT-A) data. METHODS: In this phase IV, retrospective, proof of concept, single center study, SS-OCT data from 17 previously treated nARMD eyes was used to assess retinal layer thicknesses, as well as quantify intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and serous pigment epithelium detachments (PEDs) using a novel deep learning-based, macular fluid segmentation algorithm. Baseline OCT and OCT-A morphological features and fluid measurements were correlated using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) to changes in BCVA from baseline to week 52. RESULTS: Total retinal fluid (IRF, SRF and PED) volume at baseline had the strongest correlation to improvement in BCVA at month 12 (PCC = 0.652, p = 0.005). Fluid was subsequently sub-categorized into IRF, SRF and PED, with PED volume having the next highest correlation (PCC = 0.648, p = 0.005) to BCVA improvement. Average total retinal thickness in isolation demonstrated poor correlation (PCC = 0.334, p = 0.189). When two features, mean choroidal neovascular membranes (CNVM) size and total fluid volume, were combined and correlated with visual outcomes, the highest correlation increased to PCC = 0.695 (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In isolation, total fluid volume most closely correlates with change in BCVA values between baseline and week 52. In combination with complimentary information from OCT-A, an improvement in the linear correlation score was observed. Average total retinal thickness provided a lower correlation, and thus provides a lower predictive outcome than alternative metrics assessed. Clinically, a machine-learning approach to analyzing fluid metrics in combination with lesion size may provide an advantage in personalizing therapy and predicting BCVA outcomes at week 52.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".