MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406276531 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000002208

Internal validation of a convolutional neural network pipeline for assessing meibomian gland structure from meibography

2025· article· en· W4406276531 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Scales, John Y. H. Bai, David Murakami, Joshua Young, Daniel Cheng, Preeya K. Gupta, Casey Claypool, Edward J. Holland, David Kading, Whitney Hauser, Leslie O’Dell, Eugene Appenteng Osae, Caroline A. Blackie

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)Johnson & Johnson (Canada)
FundersJohnson and Johnson Vision Care
KeywordsComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePipeline (software)Image qualityPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE: Optimal meibography utilization and interpretation are hindered due to poor lid presentation, blurry images, or image artifacts and the challenges of applying clinical grading scales. These results, using the largest image dataset analyzed to date, demonstrate development of algorithms that provide standardized, real-time inference that addresses all of these limitations. PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop and validate an algorithmic pipeline to automate and standardize meibomian gland absence assessment and interpretation. METHODS: A total of 143,476 images were collected from sites across North America. Ophthalmologist and optometrist experts established ground-truth image quality and quantification (i.e., degree of gland absence). Annotated images were allocated into training, validation, and test sets. Convolutional neural networks within Google Cloud VertexAI trained three locally deployable or edge-based predictive models: image quality detection, over-flip detection, and gland absence detection. The algorithms were combined into an algorithmic pipeline onboard a LipiScan Dynamic Meibomian Imager to provide real-time clinical inference for new images. Performance metrics were generated for each algorithm in the pipeline onboard the LipiScan from naive image test sets. RESULTS: Individual model performance metrics included the following: weighted average precision (image quality detection: 0.81, over-flip detection: 0.88, gland absence detection: 0.84), weighted average recall (image quality detection: 0.80, over-flip detection: 0.87, gland absence detection: 0.80), weighted average F1 score (image quality detection: 0.80, over-flip detection: 0.87, gland absence detection: 0.81), overall accuracy (image quality detection: 0.80, over-flip detection: 0.87, gland absence detection: 0.80), Cohen κ (image quality detection: 0.60, over-flip detection: 0.62, and gland absence detection: 0.71), Kendall τb (image quality detection: 0.61, p<0.001, over-flip detection: 0.63, p<0.001, and gland absence detection: 0.67, p<001), and Matthews coefficient (image quality detection: 0.61, over-flip detection: 0.63, and gland absence detection: 0.62). Area under the precision-recall curve (image quality detection: 0.87 over-flip detection: 0.92, gland absence detection: 0.89) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (image quality detection: 0.88, over-flip detection: 0.91 gland absence detection: 0.93) were calculated across a common set of thresholds, ranging from 0 to 1. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of predictions from each model to expert panel ground-truth demonstrated strong association and moderate to substantial agreement. The findings and performance metrics show that the pipeline of algorithms provides standardized, real-time inference/prediction of meibomian gland absence.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207