MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403211103 · doi:10.1109/iri62200.2024.00032

Enhancing Choroidal Nevi Segmentation in Fundus Images Using YOLO

2024· article· en· W4403211103 on OpenAlexaff
Mehregan Biglarbeiki, Roberto Souza, Emad A. Mohammed, Ezekiel Weis, Carol L. Shields, S Ferenczy, Behrouz H. Far, Trafford Crump

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFundus (uterus)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer visionImage segmentationOphthalmologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choroidal nevus often appears as a darkly pigmented, benign ocular lesion, which may progress to malignant forms, such as choroidal melanoma. Prompt and precise diagnosis of choroidal melanoma cannot be overstated as untreated cases can lead to vision loss and even life-threatening metastasis, under-scoring the importance of regular screening of the eye. However, this procedure is performed manually, which can be time-consuming and prone to human errors. Recent advancements in deep learning show potential for detecting eye diseases, including choroidal nevi. However, these models require extensive labelled data, which can be difficult to acquire due to the associated labelling costs. In this paper, we utilize two approaches to tackle these challenges. Firstly, we leverage a pre-trained YOLOv8 segmentation model and train it on both patches and full-size high-resolution colour fundus images. This strategy effectively expands the dataset size and allows the model to focus on the fine details of lesions within individual patches while understanding the general shape of the lesions by analyzing the entire image. Secondly, we use data augmentation to further expand the dataset size and tackle the class imbalance problem. Additionally, through the utilization of post-processing techniques, we enhance the predicted masks by addressing any potential flaws. This approach resulted in a 0.833 Dice Coefficient Score and a 0.714 Intersection Over Union (IOU) in our initial dataset and a Dice score of 0.764 and IOU of 0.618 on our second test set collected from a different site. In both datasets, this approach surpassed the models trained exclusively on full-size 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207