Multi-Comparison of Different Ocular Imaging Modality-based Deep Learning Models for Visually Significant Cataract Detection
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Age-related cataract is the leading cause of vision impairment. Researchers have utilized various imaging modalities, including slit beam, diffuse anterior segment, and retinal imaging, to develop deep learning (DL) algorithms for automated cataract analysis. However, the comparative performance of these algorithms across different ocular imaging modalities remains unevaluated, mainly due to the absence of standardized test sets across studies. Design: Retrospective study. Participants: Across all the models, the Singapore Malay Eye Study data set was used for training (N = 7093 eyes) and internal testing (N = 1649 eyes). The Singapore Indian Eye Study (SINDI; N = 5579 eyes) and the Singapore Chinese Eye Study (SCES; N = 5658 eyes) were used for external testing. A community study data set of nonmydriatic retinal photos (N = 310 eyes) was used for external testing of the retinal model. Methods: We developed 3 single-modality DL models (retinal, slit beam, and diffuse anterior segment photos) and 4 ensemble models (4 different combinations of the 3 single-modality models) to detect visually significant cataract (VSC). We defined eyes with VSC as having significant cataract (based on the modified Wisconsin cataract grading system) with a best-corrected visual acuity of <20/60. Main Outcome Measures: Area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: ≥ .07). These trends were consistently observed in the external test sets. In nonmydriatic eyes, the retinal model showed reasonable performance (AUC, 89.8%; 95% CI, 89.6-89.9). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the retinal model as a promising tool for detecting VSC, outperforming slit beam and diffuse anterior segment models. Because retinal photography is routine in diabetic retinopathy screening, this approach could enable opportunistic cataract screening with minimal add-on cost. Financial Disclosure: 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it