Assessment of the predictive potential of cognitive scores from retinal images and retinal fundus metadata via deep learning using the CLSA database
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accumulation of beta-amyloid in the brain and cognitive decline are considered hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. Knowing from previous studies that these two factors can manifest in the retina, the aim was to investigate whether a deep learning method was able to predict the cognition of an individual from a RGB image of his retina and metadata. A deep learning model, EfficientNet, was used to predict cognitive scores from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) database. The proposed model explained 22.4% of the variance in cognitive scores on the test dataset using fundus images and metadata. Metadata alone proved to be more effective in explaining the variance in the sample (20.4%) versus fundus images (9.3%) alone. Attention maps highlighted the optic nerve head as the most influential feature in predicting cognitive scores. The results demonstrate that RGB fundus images are limited in predicting cognition.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it