Automated Segmentation of Subretinal Fluid from OCT: A Vision Transformer Approach with Cross-Validation
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: We present an algorithm to segment subretinal fluid (SRF) on individual B-scan slices in patients with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Particular attention is paid to robustness, with a fivefold cross-validation approach and a hold-out test set. Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Participants: A total of 3819 B-scan slices across 98 time points from 45 patients were used in this study. Methods: Subretinal fluid was segmented on all scans. A base SegFormer model, pretrained on 4 massive data sets, was further trained on raw B-scans from the retinal OCT fluid challenge data set of 4532 slices: an open data set of intraretinal fluid, SRF, and pigment epithelium detachment. When adequate performance was reached, transfer learning was used to train the model on our in-house data set, to segment SRF by generating a pixel-wise mask of presence/absence of SRF. A fivefold cross-validation approach was used, with an additional hold-out test set. All folds were first trained and cross-validated and then additionally tested on the hold-out set. Mean (averaged across images) and total (summed across all pixels, irrespective of image) Dice coefficients were calculated for each fold. Main Outcome Measures: Subretinal fluid volume after surgical intervention for RRD. Results: The average total Dice coefficient across the validation folds was 0.92, the average mean Dice coefficient was 0.82, and the median Dice was 0.92. For the test set, the average total Dice coefficient was 0.94, the average mean Dice coefficient was 0.82, and the median Dice was 0.92. The model showed strong interfold consistency on the hold-out set, with a standard deviation of only 0.03. Conclusions: The SegFormer model for SRF segmentation demonstrates a strong ability to segment SRF. This result holds up to cross-validation and hold-out testing, across all folds. The model is available open-source online. 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 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