Fine-tuning of pre-trained convolutional neural networks for diabetic retinopathy screening: a clinical study
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
Diabetic retinopathy is a serious complication of diabetes, and if not controlled, may cause blindness. Automated screening of diabetic retinopathy helps physicians to diagnose and control the disease in early stages. In this paper, two case studies are proposed, each on a different dataset. Firstly, automatic screening of diabetic retinopathy utilising pre-trained convolutional neural networks was employed on the Kaggle dataset. The reason for using pre-trained networks is to save time and resources during training compared to fully training a convolutional neural network. The proposed networks were fine-tuned for the pre-processed dataset, and the selectable parameters of the fine-tuning approach were optimised. At the end, the performance of the fine-tuned network was evaluated using a clinical dataset comprising 101 images. The clinical dataset is completely independent from the fine-tuning dataset and is taken by a different device with different image quality and size.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it