MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407404447 · doi:10.1136/bjo-2024-326122

Realistic fundus photograph generation for improving automated disease classification

2025· article· en· W4407404447 on OpenAlexafffund
Prashant Pandey, Jonathan A. Micieli, Stephan Ong Tone, Kenneth T. Eng, Peter J. Kertes, Jovi C. Y. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Ophthalmology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreKensington HealthUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoCanadian Medical AssociationFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkTest setFundus (uterus)Computer scienceGlaucomaMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)RetinalReceiver operating characteristicComputer visionOphthalmologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: This study aims to investigate whether denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs) could generate realistic retinal images, and if they could be used to improve the performance of a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) ensemble for multiple retinal disease classification, which was previously shown to outperform human experts. METHODS: We trained DDPMs to generate retinal fundus images representing diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma or normal eyes. Eight board-certified ophthalmologists evaluated 96 test images to assess the realism of generated images and classified them based on disease labels. Subsequently, between 100 and 1000 generated images were employed to augment training of deep convolutional ensembles for classifying retinal disease. We measured the accuracy of ophthalmologists in correctly identifying real and generated images. We also measured the classification accuracy, F-score and area under the receiver operating curve of a trained CNN in classifying retinal diseases from a test set of 100 fundus images. RESULTS: Ophthalmologists exhibited a mean accuracy of 61.1% (range: 51.0%-68.8%) in differentiating real and generated images. Augmenting the training set with 238 generated images in the smallest class statistically significantly improved the F-score and accuracy by 5.3% and 5.8%, respectively (p<0.01) in a retinal disease classification task, compared with a baseline model trained only with real images. CONCLUSIONS: Latent diffusion models generated highly realistic retinal images, as validated by human experts. Adding generated images to the training set improved performance of a CNN ensemble without requiring additional real patient data.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.352
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

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of OphthalmologySame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207