Deep Learning Identifies High-Quality Fundus Photographs and Increases Accuracy in Automated Primary Open Angle Glaucoma Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To develop and evaluate a deep learning (DL) model to assess fundus photograph quality, and quantitatively measure its impact on automated POAG detection in independent study populations. Methods: Image quality ground truth was determined by manual review of 2815 fundus photographs of healthy and POAG eyes from the Diagnostic Innovations in Glaucoma Study and African Descent and Glaucoma Evaluation Study (DIGS/ADAGES), as well as 11,350 from the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study (OHTS). Human experts assessed a photograph as high quality if of sufficient quality to determine POAG status and poor quality if not. A DL quality model was trained on photographs from DIGS/ADAGES and tested on OHTS. The effect of DL quality assessment on DL POAG detection was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Results: The DL quality model yielded an AUROC of 0.97 for differentiating between high- and low-quality photographs; qualitative human review affirmed high model performance. Diagnostic accuracy of the DL POAG model was significantly greater (P < 0.001) in good (AUROC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92) compared with poor quality photographs (AUROC, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88). Conclusions: The DL quality model was able to accurately assess fundus photograph quality. Using automated quality assessment to filter out low-quality photographs increased the accuracy of a DL POAG detection model. Translational Relevance: Incorporating DL quality assessment into automated review of fundus photographs can help to decrease the burden of manual review and improve accuracy for automated DL POAG detection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".