<title>Blind deconvolution of human brain SPECT images using a distribution mixture estimation</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thanks to its ability to yield functionally-based information, the SPECT imagery technique has become a great help in the diagnostic of cerebrovascular diseases. Nevertheless, due to the imaging process, SPECT images are blurred and consequently their interpretation by the clinician is often difficult. In order to improve the spatial resolution of these images and then to facilitate their interpretation, we propose herein to implement a deconvolution procedure relying on an accurate distribution mixture parameter estimation procedure. Parameters of this distribution mixture are efficiently exploited in order to prevent overfitting of the noisy data or to determine the support of the object to be deconvolved when this one is needed. In this context, we compare the deconvolution results obtained by the Lucy-Richardson method and by the recent blind deconvolution technique called the NAS-RIF algorithm on real and simulated brain SPECT images. The NAS-RIF performs the best and shows significant contrast enhancement with little mottle (noise) amplification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".