v4 update

TODO.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Project TODO
+
+## Paper
+
+- [ ] **Learning curve analysis** — train on 25/50/75/100% of training data, plot AUC vs n.
+  Motivation: empirical evidence that the model is data-starved, which justifies the decision
+  not to pursue attention-gating (transformer) extensions to the NTowerHT bridge.
+  If the curve is still ascending at full data → supports the argument that a more expressive
+  architecture would overfit at this sample size. Generates a figure for the paper.
+
+- [ ] **GradCAM nasal-side analysis** — re-run GradCAM separately for OD and OS eyes rather
+  than aggregated. The current aggregation mirrors the two eyes against each other, washing out
+  any directional bias. Clinically, we would expect GradCAM attention offset from the disc center
+  to trend toward the nasal side (where RNFL loss presents earliest in glaucoma). If the model
+  has learned this, it would only be visible in per-side heatmaps — OD and OS are mirror images
+  so the nasal direction is opposite for each. This could be a strong interpretability result
+  for the paper if the bias is present.
+
+- [ ] **Quantify attention-gating as future work** — use the learning curve result + parameter
+  count ratio (Q/K/V projections over fusion_dim vs training n) to formally justify the choice.
+  Frame in paper as: "we identify cross-attention inside the NTowerHT bridge as a promising
+  extension, but our sample size (N≈400 training patients) is insufficient to avoid overfitting
+  a more expressive interaction layer" — cite the learning curve figure as evidence.