Comparing code-free deep learning models to expert-designed models for detecting retinal diseases from optical coherence tomography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Code-free deep learning (CFDL) is a novel tool in artificial intelligence (AI). This study directly compared the discriminative performance of CFDL models designed by ophthalmologists without coding experience against bespoke models designed by AI experts in detecting retinal pathologies from optical coherence tomography (OCT) videos and fovea-centered images. METHODS: Using the same internal dataset of 1,173 OCT macular videos and fovea-centered images, model development was performed simultaneously but independently by an ophthalmology resident (CFDL models) and a postdoctoral researcher with expertise in AI (bespoke models). We designed a multi-class model to categorize video and fovea-centered images into five labels: normal retina, macular hole, epiretinal membrane, wet age-related macular degeneration and diabetic macular edema. We qualitatively compared point estimates of the performance metrics of the CFDL and bespoke models. RESULTS: For videos, the CFDL model demonstrated excellent discriminative performance, even outperforming the bespoke models for some metrics: area under the precision-recall curve was 0.984 (vs. 0.901), precision and sensitivity were both 94.1% (vs. 94.2%) and accuracy was 94.1% (vs. 96.7%). The fovea-centered CFDL model overall performed better than video-based model and was as accurate as the best bespoke model. CONCLUSION: This comparative study demonstrated that code-free models created by clinicians without coding expertise perform as accurately as expert-designed bespoke models at classifying various retinal pathologies from OCT videos and images. CFDL represents a step forward towards the democratization of AI in medicine, although its numerous limitations must be carefully addressed to ensure its effective application in healthcare.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".