Automated Machine Learning versus Expert-Designed Models in Ocular Toxoplasmosis: Detection and Lesion Localization Using Fundus Images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Automated machine learning (AutoML) allows clinicians without coding experience to build their own deep learning (DL) models. This study assesses the performance of AutoML in detecting and localizing ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) lesions in fundus images and compares it to expert-designed models. METHODS: Ophthalmology trainees without coding experience designed AutoML models using 304 labelled fundus images. We designed a binary model to differentiate OT from normal and an object detection model to visually identify OT lesions. RESULTS: The AutoML model had an area under the precision-recall curve (AuPRC) of 0.945, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 83% and accuracy of 93.5% (vs. 94%, 86% and 91% for the bespoke models). The AutoML object detection model had an AuPRC of 0.600 with a precision of 93.3% and recall of 56%. Using a diversified external validation dataset, our model correctly labeled 15 normal fundus images (100%) and 15 OT fundus images (100%), with a mean confidence score of 0.965 and 0.963, respectively. CONCLUSION: AutoML models created by ophthalmologists without coding experience were comparable or better than expert-designed bespoke models trained on the same dataset. By creatively using AutoML to identify OT lesions on fundus images, our approach brings the whole spectrum of DL model design into the hands of clinicians.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it