Predicting OCT biological marker localization from weak annotations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in deep learning have shown success in accurately predicting the location of biological markers in Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) volumes of patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD) and Diabetic Retinopathy (DR). We propose a method that automatically locates biological markers to the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) rings, only requiring B-scan-level presence annotations. We trained a neural network using 22,723 OCT B-Scans of 460 eyes (433 patients) with AMD and DR, annotated with slice-level labels for Intraretinal Fluid (IRF) and Subretinal Fluid (SRF). The neural network outputs were mapped into the corresponding ETDRS rings. We incorporated the class annotations and domain knowledge into a loss function to constrain the output with biologically plausible solutions. The method was tested on a set of OCT volumes with 322 eyes (189 patients) with Diabetic Macular Edema, with slice-level SRF and IRF presence annotations for the ETDRS rings. Our method accurately predicted the presence of IRF and SRF in each ETDRS ring, outperforming previous baselines even in the most challenging scenarios. Our model was also successfully applied to en-face marker segmentation and showed consistency within C-scans, despite not incorporating volume information in the training process. We achieved a correlation coefficient of 0.946 for the prediction of the IRF area.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".