MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2010595888 · doi:10.1118/1.3476154

Poster — Thur Eve — 49: Investigating the Effects of Motion on Texture within the Lung

2010· article· en· W2010595888 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Markel, Curtis Caldwell, A. Sun, A Hamideh, Douglass Vines

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationLung cancerArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)LungNuclear medicineFeature (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Image segmentationComputed tomographyComputer scienceMedicineRadiologyPathologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated methods using CT‐image‐based texture features have shown promise for segmentation of lung tumours. Combining CT with PET features for use in segmentation has been shown to improve segmentation accuracy compared to using either modality separately and has potential for use in accurate internal target volume definition in lung cancer. One issue of particular importance in lung tumor segmentation is the effect of motion on the measures extracted from PET and CT images. This aspect is under investigation using maximum intensity projections (MIPs) in addition to temporally gated CT, PET and un‐gated PET data sets. Preliminary results from 13 patients (9 diagnosed with lung cancer; 4 diagnosed with cancers outside the lung area, representing healthy lung tissue) show that with gated CT, PET and CT homogeneity, PET Entropy, and CT Coarseness are some of the strongest discriminators for use in classification with statistical distance measures of up to 2.0 between normal and abnormal tissue. The texture features from MIPs of 4 of the patients show that they present somewhat less discriminating feature values, as to be expected. Their usefulness within the context of segmentation remains to be investigated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→