MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diabetic Retinopathy Detection Through Retinal Vessel Segmentation Using Swin U-Net Model

2024· article· en· W4404628633 on OpenAlexaff
Zineb Farahat, Nabila Zrira, Nissrine Souissi, Sajid Rahim, Aqsa Rahim, Mohammed Belmekki, Nabil Ngote, Kawtar Megdiche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetinalDiabetic retinopathyComputer scienceRetinopathySegmentationImage segmentationArtificial intelligenceOphthalmologyDiabetes mellitusMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a common ocular illness that affects people in their working years and can cause vision loss. Blood vessel segmentation is crucial for the early detection and management of DR. It helps identify early warning signs including hemorrhages and microaneurysms, allowing for prompt intervention to prevent vision loss. In addition, it provides quantitative measures such as tortuosity and vascular density, which aid in making treatment decisions and charting the progression of the disease over time. But artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular deep learning (DL), is about to change medicine gradually and affect almost every area of human life. Significant improvements in diagnostic technologies have made it easier to gain insight into retinal conditions. Auto-mated screening methods considerably expedite DR detection, especially in resource-constrained contexts. Automatic blood vessel segmentation significantly improves patient outcomes in diabetic retinopathy screening programs by facilitating timely intervention and precise treatment recommendations. In this work, we apply a segmentation method to the color fundus images. First, we started by preprocessing using the CLAHE method, data augmentation, and resizing. Swin-UNet was then applied to segment retinal vessels on the RITE, Drive, STARE, and ChaseDB1 datasets. The used Swin U-Net model obtained a specificity of 92.83%, a sensitivity of 94.67%, and a Dice score of 91.24% on the ChaseDB1, STARE, and Drive datasets. Our model obtained a specificity of 86%, a sensitivity of 85%, and a Dice score of 87% on the RITE dataset.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.291 · 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