ChatFFA: An ophthalmic chat system for unified vision-language understanding and question answering for fundus fluorescein angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing automatic analysis of fundus fluorescein angiography (FFA) images faces limitations, including a predetermined set of possible image classifications and being confined to text-based question-answering (QA) approaches. This study aims to address these limitations by developing an end-to-end unified model that utilizes synthetic data to train a visual question-answering model for FFA images. To achieve this, we employed ChatGPT to generate 4,110,581 QA pairs for a large FFA dataset, which encompassed a total of 654,343 FFA images from 9,392 participants. We then fine-tuned the Bootstrapping Language-Image Pre-training (BLIP) framework to enable simultaneous handling of vision and language. The performance of the fine-tuned model (ChatFFA) was thoroughly evaluated through automated and manual assessments, as well as case studies based on an external validation set, demonstrating satisfactory results. In conclusion, our ChatFFA system paves the way for improved efficiency and feasibility in medical imaging analysis by leveraging generative large language models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".