MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning Can Accurately Distinguish Between True Papilledema and Optic Disc Drusen On Ocular Fundus Photographs (P17-12.001)

2022· article· en· W4389374455 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Biousse, Raymond P. Najjar, Kanchalika Sathianvichitr, Zhiqun Tang, Steffen Hamann, Clare L. Fraser, Alexander Fraser, Mung Yan Lin, Caroline Vasseneix, Jason H. Peragallo, Fiona Costello, Tien Yin Wong, Nancy J. Newman, Dan Miléa

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFundus (uterus)PapilledemaDrusenOphthalmologyMedicineOptic discOptometryRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the performance of an artificial intelligence deep learning system (DLS) to automatically distinguish between true papilledema (from intracranial hypertension) and optic disc drusen (ODD) on standard ocular fundus images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicCerebral Venous Sinus ThrombosisFrench-language works237,207