Principal component analysis of the CT density histogram to generate parametric response maps of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary x-ray computed tomography (CT) may be used to characterize emphysema and airways disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One analysis approach – parametric response mapping (PMR) utilizes registered inspiratory and expiratory CT image volumes and CT-density-histogram thresholds, but there is no consensus regarding the threshold values used, or their clinical meaning. Principal-component-analysis (PCA) of the CT density histogram can be exploited to quantify emphysema using data-driven CT-density-histogram thresholds. Thus, the objective of this proof-of-concept demonstration was to develop a PRM approach using PCA-derived thresholds in COPD patients and ex-smokers without airflow limitation. Methods: Fifteen COPD ex-smokers and 5 normal ex-smokers were evaluated. Thoracic CT images were also acquired at full inspiration and full expiration and these images were non-rigidly co-registered. PCA was performed for the CT density histograms, from which the components with the highest eigenvalues greater than one were summed. Since the values of the principal component curve correlate directly with the variability in the sample, the maximum and minimum points on the curve were used as threshold values for the PCA-adjusted PRM technique. Results: A significant correlation was determined between conventional and PCA-adjusted PRM with 3He MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (p<0.001), with CT RA950 (p<0.0001), as well as with 3He MRI ventilation defect percent, a measurement of both small airways disease (p=0.049 and p=0.06, respectively) and emphysema (p=0.02). Conclusions: PRM generated using PCA thresholds of the CT density histogram showed significant correlations with CT and 3He MRI measurements of emphysema, but not airways disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".