MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319298108 · doi:10.3390/jcm12041284

Artificial Intelligence Based Analysis of Corneal Confocal Microscopy Images for Diagnosing Peripheral Neuropathy: A Binary Classification Model

2023· article· en· W4319298108 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yanda Meng, Frank Preston, Maryam Ferdousi, Shazli Azmi, Ioannis N. Petropoulos, Stephen B. Kaye, Rayaz A. Malik, Uazman Alam, Yalin Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesMedical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation United Kingdom
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyDiabetes mellitusReceiver operating characteristicArea under the curveArtificial intelligenceBasal (medicine)Type 2 diabetesConfocal microscopyInternal medicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is the leading cause of neuropathy worldwide resulting in excess morbidity and mortality. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence deep learning algorithm to classify the presence or absence of peripheral neuropathy (PN) in participants with diabetes or pre-diabetes using corneal confocal microscopy (CCM) images of the sub-basal nerve plexus. A modified ResNet-50 model was trained to perform the binary classification of PN (PN+) versus no PN (PN−) based on the Toronto consensus criteria. A dataset of 279 participants (149 PN−, 130 PN+) was used to train (n = 200), validate (n = 18), and test (n = 61) the algorithm, utilizing one image per participant. The dataset consisted of participants with type 1 diabetes (n = 88), type 2 diabetes (n = 141), and pre-diabetes (n = 50). The algorithm was evaluated using diagnostic performance metrics and attribution-based methods (gradient-weighted class activation mapping (Grad-CAM) and Guided Grad-CAM). In detecting PN+, the AI-based DLA achieved a sensitivity of 0.91 (95%CI: 0.79–1.0), a specificity of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.83–1.0), and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.83–0.99). Our deep learning algorithm demonstrates excellent results for the diagnosis of PN using CCM. A large-scale prospective real-world study is required to validate its diagnostic efficacy prior to implementation in screening and diagnostic programmes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations33
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207