Uno-Qa: an Unsupervised Anomaly-Aware Framework with Test-Time Clustering for Octa Image Quality Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical image quality assessment (MIQA) is a vital prerequisite in various medical image analysis applications. Most existing MIQA algorithms are fully supervised that request a large amount of annotated data. However, annotating medical images is time-consuming and labor-intensive. In this paper, we propose an unsupervised anomaly-aware framework with test-time clustering for optical coherence tomography angiography (OCTA) image quality assessment in a setting wherein only a set of high-quality samples are accessible in the training phase. Specifically, a feature-embedding-based low-quality representation module is proposed to quantify the quality of OCTA images and then to discriminate between outstanding quality and non-outstanding quality. Within the non-outstanding quality class, to further distinguish gradable images from ungradable ones, we perform dimension reduction and clustering of multi-scale image features extracted by the trained OCTA quality representation network. Extensive experiments are conducted on one publicly accessible dataset sOCTA-3×3-10k, with superiority of our proposed framework being successfully established.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".