MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981811275 · doi:10.1155/2009/843160

Image Restoration Using Functional and Anatomical Information Fusion with Application to SPECT‐MRI Images

2009· article· en· W1981811275 on OpenAlexaff
S. Benameur, Max Mignotte, Jean Meunier, Jean‐Paul Soucy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biomedical Imaging · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRegularization (linguistics)Image fusionImage restorationSegmentationMagnetic resonance imagingImage registrationSpect imagingMedical imagingReal-time MRIPattern recognition (psychology)Image processingImage (mathematics)Nuclear medicineRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image restoration is usually viewed as an ill-posed problem in image processing, since there is no unique solution associated with it. The quality of restored image closely depends on the constraints imposed of the characteristics of the solution. In this paper, we propose an original extension of the NAS-RIF restoration technique by using information fusion as prior information with application in SPECT medical imaging. That extension allows the restoration process to be constrained by efficiently incorporating, within the NAS-RIF method, a regularization term which stabilizes the inverse solution. Our restoration method is constrained by anatomical information extracted from a high resolution anatomical procedure such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This structural anatomy-based regularization term uses the result of an unsupervised Markovian segmentation obtained after a preliminary registration step between the MRI and SPECT data volumes from each patient. This method was successfully tested on 30 pairs of brain MRI and SPECT acquisitions from different subjects and on Hoffman and Jaszczak SPECT phantoms. The experiments demonstrated that the method performs better, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio, than a classical supervised restoration approach using a Metz filter.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Biomedical ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207