Integrating Retinal Segmentation Metrics with Machine Learning for Predictions from Mouse SD-OCT Scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to initially test whether machine learning approaches could categorically predict two simple biological features, mouse age and mouse species, using the retinal segmentation metrics. METHODS: The retinal layer thickness data obtained from C57BL/6 and DBA/2J mice were processed for machine learning after segmenting mouse retinal SD-OCT scans. Twenty-two models were trained to predict the mouse groups. The best neural network model was optimized for better outcomes. Prediction accuracy, the area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F-1 score values were obtained. RESULTS: = 0.005 for all). For C57BL/6-DBA/2J classification, a mean validation accuracy of 88.11 ± 3.92% (95% CI: 86.99-89.22) was achieved for the neural network when the optimized neural network had 92.31% final test accuracy with an area under the curve value of 0.9762, 94.44% sensitivity, 90.48% specificity, 89.47% precision, and 0.92 F-1 score. The optimized neural network model for age group differentiation had a final test accuracy of 82.05% with a 0.9064 area under the curve value, 77.27% sensitivity, 88.24% specificity, 89.47% precision, and 0.83 F-1 score. CONCLUSIONS: These findings validate that machine learning, using segmentation metrics instead of images, can effectively analyze retinal OCT scans in mice for categorical predictions in experimental models. Expanding this approach with additional features, including histopathological and functional correlations, is expected to improve the prediction power further, promising valuable applications to predict more complex outcomes in experimental and clinical studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".