The relationship of diabetic retinopathy severity scales with frequency and surface area of diabetic retinopathy lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between qualitative diabetic retinopathy (DR) scales with the precise numbers and surface area of DR lesions within the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) standard seven field (S7F) region on ultrawide-field (UWF) color fundus images. METHODS: In this study, we collected UWF images from adult patients with diabetes. Poor-quality images and eyes with any pathology precluding assessment of DR severity were excluded. The DR lesions were manually segmented. DR severity was graded according to the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy (ICDR) and AA protocol by two masked graders within the ETDRS S7F. These lesions' numbers and surface area were computed and correlated against the DR scores using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Cohen's Kappa was performed to determine the agreement between two graders. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and twenty eyes of 869 patients (294 females, 756 right eyes) with a mean age of 58.7 years were included. 47.4% were graded as no DR, 2.2% as mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR), 24.0% as moderate NPDR, 6.3% as severe NPDR, and 20.1% as proliferative DR (PDR). The area and number of DR lesions generally increased as the ICDR level increased up to severe NPDR, but decreased from severe NPDR to PDR. There was perfect intergrader agreement on the DR severity. CONCLUSION: A quantitative approach reveals that DR lesions' number and area generally correlate with ICDR-based categorical DR severity levels with an increasing trend in the number and area of DR lesions from mild to severe NPDR and a decrease from severe NPDR to PDR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".