Background and Objectives:Retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) classification requires recognition of subtle lesions within their anatomical surroundings, yet expanding contextual coverage can obscure local structural information. MCG-Net integrates local morphology and multiscale context within a gated convolutional hierarchy. Methods: A retained depthwise local pathway is augmented by two compressed separable context branches with bounded channel-wise residual scales. This study distinguishes choroidal neovascularization, diabetic macular edema, drusen, and normal retina. OCT-C8 provides development images; independent CAVRI-H5 and OCTDL datasets provide 384 external observations. Both external datasets remain excluded from parameter fitting, development validation, and checkpoint selection, but their ablation results inform selection of the Full 11/23 architecture. Paired comparisons, source-specific assessment, and visual error analysis characterize this external model comparison. Results: MCG-Net achieved 92.01±0.60% accuracy, 91.99±0.61% macro-F1, and 89.47±0.80% Matthews correlation coefficient. Combined context improved macro-F1 over the local baseline by 2.18 percentage points, with a paired 98% interval of 0.50–4.04 and adjusted p=0.019. Exploratory comparisons identified differences against six alternatives, while advantages over the strongest comparators remained uncertain. Source-specific accuracy was 90.86% on CAVRI-H5 and 95.49% on OCTDL; drusen remained the most difficult category. The model contains 26.82 million parameters and has 4.28 ms median inference latency on an RTX 5090. Conclusions: Compressed residual context strengthens gated convolutional OCT classification without replacing local processing. Reuse of the external cohort for architecture selection limits confirmatory interpretation. Untouched external validation, complete-development patient metadata, and representative clinical sampling are needed before clinical use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özizmirliler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: