Performance Evaluation of Different Object Detection Models for the Segmentation of Optical Cups and Discs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glaucoma is an eye disease that gradually deteriorates vision. Much research focuses on extracting information from the optic disc and optic cup, the structure used for measuring the cup-to-disc ratio. These structures are commonly segmented with deeplearning techniques, primarily using Encoder-Decoder models, which are hard to train and time-consuming. Object detection models using convolutional neural networks can extract features from fundus retinal images with good precision. However, the superiority of one model over another for a specific task is still being determined. The main goal of our approach is to compare object detection model performance to automate segment cups and discs on fundus images. This study brings the novelty of seeing the behavior of different object detection models in the detection and segmentation of the disc and the optical cup (Mask R-CNN, MS R-CNN, CARAFE, Cascade Mask R-CNN, GCNet, SOLO, Point_Rend), evaluated on Retinal Fundus Images for Glaucoma Analysis (REFUGE), and G1020 datasets. Reported metrics were Average Precision (AP), F1-score, IoU, and AUCPR. Several models achieved the highest AP with a perfect 1.000 when the threshold for IoU was set up at 0.50 on REFUGE, and the lowest was Cascade Mask R-CNN with an AP of 0.997. On the G1020 dataset, the best model was Point_Rend with an AP of 0.956, and the worst was SOLO with 0.906. It was concluded that the methods reviewed achieved excellent performance with high precision and recall values, showing efficiency and effectiveness. The problem of how many images are needed was addressed with an initial value of 100, with excellent results. Data augmentation, multi-scale handling, and anchor box size brought improvements. The capability to translate knowledge from one database to another shows promising results too.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".