AI Navigate

Diabetic Retinopathy Grading with CLIP-based Ranking-Aware Adaptation:A Comparative Study on Fundus Image

arXiv cs.CV / 3/17/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The study investigates three CLIP-based methods for five-class diabetic retinopathy severity grading: a zero-shot baseline with prompt engineering, a hybrid FCN-CLIP model with CBAM attention, and a ranking-aware prompting model that captures the ordinal progression of DR.
  • The authors train and evaluate on a combined dataset of APTOS 2019 and Messidor-2 (n=5,406), addressing class imbalance with resampling and class-specific thresholding.
  • Results show the ranking-aware model achieving the highest overall accuracy (93.42%) and AUROC (0.9845), with strong recall for severe cases, while the FCN-CLIP model (92.49%, AUROC 0.99) excels at detecting proliferative DR; both outperform the zero-shot baseline (55.17%, AUROC 0.75).
  • The paper analyzes the complementary strengths of the approaches and discusses their practical implications for DR screening contexts.

Abstract

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of preventable blindness, and automated fundus image grading can play an important role in large-scale screening. In this work, we investigate three CLIP-based approaches for five-class DR severity grading: (1) a zero-shot baseline using prompt engineering, (2) a hybrid FCN-CLIP model augmented with CBAM attention, and (3) a ranking-aware prompting model that encodes the ordinal structure of DR progression. We train and evaluate on a combined dataset of APTOS 2019 and Messidor-2 (n=5,406), addressing class imbalance through resampling and class-specific optimal thresholding. Our experiments show that the ranking-aware model achieves the highest overall accuracy (93.42%, AUROC 0.9845) and strong recall on clinically critical severe cases, while the hybrid FCN-CLIP model (92.49%, AUROC 0.99) excels at detecting proliferative DR. Both substantially outperform the zero-shot baseline (55.17%, AUROC 0.75). We analyze the complementary strengths of each approach and discuss their practical implications for screening contexts.