Retinal Disease Detection Using Deep Learning Techniques: A Comprehensive Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Millions of people are affected by retinal abnormalities worldwide. Early detection and treatment of these abnormalities could arrest further progression, saving multitudes from avoidable blindness. Manual disease detection is time-consuming, tedious and lacks repeatability. There have been efforts to automate ocular disease detection, riding on the successes of the application of Deep Convolutional Neural Networks (DCNNs) and vision transformers (ViTs) for Computer-Aided Diagnosis (CAD). These models have performed well, however, there remain challenges owing to the complex nature of retinal lesions. This work reviews the most common retinal pathologies, provides an overview of prevalent imaging modalities and presents a critical evaluation of current deep-learning research for the detection and grading of glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, Age-Related Macular Degeneration and multiple retinal diseases. The work concluded that CAD, through deep learning, will increasingly be vital as an assistive technology. As future work, there is a need to explore the potential impact of using ensemble CNN architectures in multiclass, multilabel tasks. Efforts should also be expended on the improvement of model explainability to win the trust of clinicians and patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".