Prediction of visual impairment in retinitis pigmentosa using deep learning and multimodal fundus images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficiency of clinical trials for retinitis pigmentosa (RP) treatment is limited by the screening burden and lack of reliable surrogate markers for functional end points. Automated methods to determine visual acuity (VA) may help address these challenges. We aimed to determine if VA could be estimated using confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (cSLO) imaging and deep learning (DL). METHODS: Snellen corrected VA and cSLO imaging were obtained retrospectively. The Johns Hopkins University (JHU) dataset was used for 10-fold cross-validations and internal testing. The Amsterdam University Medical Centers (AUMC) dataset was used for external independent testing. Both datasets had the same exclusion criteria: visually significant media opacities and images not centred on the central macula. The JHU dataset included patients with RP with and without molecular confirmation. The AUMC dataset only included molecularly confirmed patients with RP. Using transfer learning, three versions of the ResNet-152 neural network were trained: infrared (IR), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and combined image (CI). RESULTS: In internal testing (JHU dataset, 2569 images, 462 eyes, 231 patients), the area under the curve (AUC) for the binary classification task of distinguishing between Snellen VA 20/40 or better and worse than Snellen VA 20/40 was 0.83, 0.87 and 0.85 for IR, OCT and CI, respectively. In external testing (AUMC dataset, 349 images, 166 eyes, 83 patients), the AUC was 0.78, 0.87 and 0.85 for IR, OCT and CI, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our algorithm showed robust performance in predicting visual impairment in patients with RP, thus providing proof-of-concept for predicting structure-function correlation based solely on cSLO imaging in patients with RP.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".