A Comparison of the Tortuosity Phenomenon in Retinal Arteries and Veins Using Digital Image Processing and Statistical Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tortuosity of retinal blood vessels is an important phenomenon, and it can act as a biomarker in the diagnosis of several eye diseases. The study of abnormalities in the tortuosity of retinal arteries and veins provides ophthalmologists with important information for disease diagnosis. Our study aims to compare the tortuosity relation between retinal arteries and veins by quantifying the vessels’ tortuosity in the retina using 14 tortuosity measures applied to the AV-classification retinal dataset. Two feature sets are created, one for arteries and the other for veins. The comparison between the tortuosity of arteries and veins is based on a two-sample T-test statistical method, a regression analysis between the quantified tortuosity features, principal component analysis at the dataset level, and the introduction of the arteriovenous length ratios concept to compare the variations in these new ratios to see the tortuosity behavior in each image. The methods’ results have shown that the tortuosity of retinal arteries and veins is similar. The result of the two-sample T-test supports the research hypothesis, as the P-value obtained was greater than 0.05. Furthermore, the regression analysis between arteries and veins features showed a high correlation (r2 = 89.39% and 89.11%) for arteries and veins, respectively. The study concludes that the retinal vessel type has no statistical significance in the tortuosity calculation results.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".