MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976301504 · doi:10.1118/1.2992051

A comparison of texture quantification techniques based on the Fourier and S transforms

2008· article· en· W1976301504 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Brown, Richard Frayne

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)Imaging phantomArtificial intelligenceImage textureComputer scienceMedical imagingPattern recognition (psychology)Fourier transformImage processingComputer visionImage (mathematics)MathematicsNuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting differences in texture has been found to be useful in a variety of medical image analysis applications. One class of methods for texture estimation is based upon analysis of local frequency spectra produced by the S transform. Clinical applications have included detection of multiple sclerosis lesions and identification of brain tumor genotype. This paper describes a software application designed to detect texture differences in medical images, demonstrates and validates the ability of the technique to analyze magnetic resonance images obtained of an in vitro phantom with known textural features, and compares the results to alternative methods. Finally, some examples of texture analysis in several promising biomedical applications are included.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207