MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406999711 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.100721

Code-Free Deep Learning Glaucoma Detection on Color Fundus Images

2025· article· en· W4406999711 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Est-de-l'Île-de-MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFundus (uterus)Artificial intelligenceGlaucomaComputer visionCode (set theory)OptometryOphthalmologyMedicineProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Code-free deep learning (CFDL) allows clinicians with no coding experience to build their own artificial intelligence models. This study assesses the performance of CFDL in glaucoma detection from fundus images in comparison to expert-designed models. Design: Deep learning model development, testing, and validation. Subjects: A total of 101 442 labeled fundus images from the Rotterdam EyePACS Artificial Intelligence for Robust Glaucoma Screening (AIROGS) dataset were included. Methods: Ophthalmology trainees without coding experience designed a CFDL binary model using the Rotterdam EyePACS AIROGS dataset of fundus images (101 442 labeled images) to differentiate glaucoma from normal optic nerves. We compared our results with bespoke models from the literature. We then proceeded to externally validate our model using 2 datasets, the Retinal Fundus Glaucoma Challenge (REFUGE) and the Glaucoma grading from Multi-Modality imAges (GAMMA) at 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 confidence thresholds. Main Outcome Measures: Area under the precision-recall curve (AuPRC), sensitivity at 95% specificity (SE@95SP), accuracy, area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and positive predictive value (PPV). Results: The CFDL model showed high performance metrics that were comparable to the bespoke deep learning models. Our single-label classification model had an AuPRC of 0.988, an SE@95SP of 95%, and an accuracy of 91% (compared with 85% SE@95SP for the top bespoke models). Using the REFUGE dataset for external validation, our model had an SE@95SP, AUC, PPV, and accuracy of 83%, 0.960%, 73% to 94%, and 95% to 98%, respectively, at the 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 confidence threshold cutoffs. Using the GAMMA dataset for external validation at the same confidence threshold cutoffs, our model had an SE@95SP, AUC, PPV, and accuracy of 98%, 0.994%, 94% to 96%, and 94% to 97%, respectively. Conclusion: The capacity of CFDL models to perform glaucoma screening using fundus images presents a compelling proof of concept, empowering clinicians to explore innovative model designs for broad glaucoma screening in the near future. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.310 · 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