Comparison of diabetic retinopathy severity grading on ETDRS 7-field versus ultrawide-field assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity level determined when considering only the ETDRS 7-field region versus the entire ultrawidefield (UWF) image. METHODS: In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, UWF pseudocolor images were graded on the Eyenuk image viewing, grading, and annotation platform for the severity of DR considering only the regions within the ETDRS 7-fields as well as the entire UWF image using two different protocols: 1) the simple International Classification of Diabetic Retinopathy (ICDR) scale and 2) the more complex DRCR.net Protocol AA grading scale. RESULTS: A total of 250 eyes from 157 patients were included in this analysis. Six eyes (2.4%) demonstrated a discrepancy in severity level between the ETDRS 7-field region and the entire UWF image when using the ICDR classification system. The discrepancies were due to the presence of lesions [intraretinal haemorrhage (n = 2), neovascular disease (n = 4)] in the peripheral fields which were not identified in the ETDRS 7-fields. Fourteen eyes (5.6%) had a discrepancy in severity level between the ETDRS 7-field region and the entire UWF image when using the ETDRS DRSS Protocol AA grading scale. The discrepancies were due to the presence of a higher level of disease [intraretinal haemorrhage (n = 4), neovascularization (n = 4), preretinal haemorrhage (n = 2), scatter laser scars (n = 4)] in the peripheral fields. CONCLUSION: Although considering regions outside of the ETDRS 7-fields altered the DR severity level assessment in <5% of cases in this cohort, significant and potentially vision-threatening lesions including neovascularization and preretinal haemorrhage were identified in these peripheral regions. This highlights the importance of evaluating the entire UWF region when assessing patients with diabetic retinopathy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".