MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318154279 · doi:10.1117/12.2651145

Measurement of sub-foveal choroidal thickness from optical low coherence reflectometry biometry: a new method

2023· article· en· W4318154279 on OpenAlexaff
Sivvani Muthusamy, Janarthanam Jothi Balaji, Anusha Patiala, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFovealOphthalmologyReflectometryIntraclass correlationRetinalOptical coherence tomographyOpticsOptometryMathematicsMedicineReproducibilityComputer sciencePhysicsStatisticsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is estimated that by the year 2050, approximately 50.0 % of the world’s population will be myopic. It has been suggested that the thickening sub-foveal choroidal thickness (SFChT) is a precursor for reduced eye growth and slowed myopia progression. Hence, it is highly important to identify structural changes, during myopia management. Literature suggests that the SFChT show short-term changes and has been proposed as an ocular marker for many ocular conditions including pathological myopia. A major limitation to its use is that none of the commercially available instruments give a direct measure of SFChT. This paper describes a new semi-automated method for quantification of the SFChT using ocular biometry. This image processing method is used on healthy pediatric myopes to quantify the SFChT. Both axial length (AXL) and SFChT were quantified from a 2-D A-scan graph generated from an ocular biometer (ARGOS, Aichi, Japan). An experienced clinician manually selected three peak points corresponding to anterior corneal, retinal, and choroidal peaks which were used as the input to the algorithm. Using the pixel properties, the overall AXL was calculated by subtracting the distance between the anterior corneal and retinal peak. Similarly, the SFChT was calculated as the distance difference between retinal and choroidal peaks. These calculated values were compared with a standard clinical method. The intraclass correlation coefficient ICC showed a good (κ=0.79, CI: 0.63 – 0.87) agreement between the methods. Similarly, the Bland-Altman plot showed a good agreement (The mean difference between the two methods was -21.28 μm) with a wide limit of agreement (LOA: 79.08 & -121.64 μm). Compared to SS-OCT method and new-semi automated method, there is significant overestimation of SFChT (p<0.001). However, there is moderate agreement between these two methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207