MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388586356 · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-47019-6

Predicting OCT biological marker localization from weak annotations

2023· article· en· W4388586356 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Gamazo Tejero, Pablo Márquez Neila, Thomas Kurmann, Mathias Gallardo, Martin S. Zinkernagel, Sebastián Wolf, Raphael Sznitman

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical coherence tomographyDiabetic retinopathyArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSegmentationMacular degenerationPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineOphthalmologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207