MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2017622630 · doi:10.1118/1.3611747

SU‐E‐I‐173: Factor Analysis with Prior Information Using Projected Gradient Method — Application to 11C‐DTBZ Dynamic PET Dataset for Early Detection of Parkinsonˈs Disease

2011· article· en· W2017622630 on OpenAlexaff
D Lee, Alexander McEwan, Don Robinson, H Jans, W. R. Wayne Martin, Marguerite Wieler, Terence Riauka

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceMetric (unit)MathematicsComputer scienceNuclear medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To apply factor analysis technique to a sequence of 11C‐DTBZ dynamic PET images to healthy and diseased subjects in order to extract factor curves (or time activity curves) and associated factor images and develop a metric to detect extent of Parkinsonˈs disease. Methods: Philips Gemini (C) PET/CT scanner (with 4mm isotropic voxels) is used to collect a dynamic dataset consisting of a time sequence of 16 frames (with unequal temporal spacing) of the brain from healthy and diseased subjects. Several image preprocessing techniques (e.g. noise reduction using singular value decomposition, voxel‐averaging) are used on these dynamic datasets prior to implementing factor analysis using projected gradient method in the framework of non‐negative matrix factorization to extract physiologically meaningful structures. A priori information (region‐of‐interest based time activity curves) is used to warm start the optimization process in order to reduce the number of possible solutions. Results: The factor analysis technique separates each dynamic dataset into two time‐dynamic factors — one factor represents the striatum (directly related to the disease) while the other factor represents the non‐striatum tissues. The factor curves and images related to the former show clear difference in the tracer uptake among the healthy and diseased subjects. Our metric, which relies on such difference, indicates that the tracer uptake in striatum tissue for the healthy subject is roughly four times higher than that of the diseased subject. Conclusions: This study suggests that the technique can decompose large dynamic datasets into parts‐based images (or volumes) that represent the underlying physiological structures, and has the potential to significantly aid in the review process for evaluating dynamic datasets by clinicians. The technique is not limited to dynamic PET images and can be applied to any sequence of dynamic images.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.322
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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