MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293707077 · doi:10.1117/12.2633672

Quantum machine learning prediction model for retinal conditions: performance analysis

2022· article· en· W4293707077 on OpenAlexaff
Manoj Naick, Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Varadharajan Jayakumar, Jyothi Balaji, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuantum machine learningQubitArtificial intelligenceQuantum computerQuantumQuantum entanglementPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum machine learning by superposition and entanglement, for disease categorization utilizing OCT images will be discussed in this paper. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of the quantum computing element in a neural network model for classifying ophthalmological disease. The model was built and tested with PennyLane (PennyLane.ai), an open-source software tool based on the concept of quantum differentiable programming. The model training circuit functioning was tested on an IBM 5 qubits system “ibmq_belem” and a 32 qubits simulator “ibmq. qasm_simulator”. A hybrid quantum and classical model with a 2 qubit QNode converted layer with operations such as Angle Embedding, BasicEntanglerLayers and measurements were the internal operations of the qlayer. Drusen, Choroidal neovascularization (CNV), and Diabetic macular edema (DME) OCT images formed the abnormal/disease class. The model was trained using 414 normal and 504 abnormal labelled OCT scans and the validation used 97 and 205 OCT scans. The resulting model had an accuracy of 0.95 in this preliminary 2-class classifier. This study aims to develop a 4-class classifier with 4 qubits and explore the potential of quantum computing for disease categorization. A preliminary performance analysis of quantum Machine Learning, the steps involved, and operational details will be discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.298
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207