Colour calibration differences between fundus cameras shift the pixel distributions on which diabetic retinopathy graders are trained, and a model that performs well on one camera may silently misgrade images from another. The framework treats each camera as a source or target measure on a colour-appearance space, defines a calibrated transport plan under a colour-constancy constraint, and derives a bound on the target-domain grading risk that separates covariate shift from label shift. A before-after-control-impact design is characterised under a declared variance structure with between-cluster SD 6.0, residual SD 4.5 and intraclass correlation 0.64; power was estimated across 2000 design cells for cluster counts of 8, 16, 24 and 32 and effects of 3, 5 and 8 percentage points. The design analysis indicates that 54 clusters are required for 80% power at a 5-percentage-point effect. The framework proposes that fairness-aware transport regularisation, not unconstrained distribution matching, is the condition under which diagnostic equity across cameras can be assessed rather than assumed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diop et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: