A comparison of human and model observers in multislice LROC studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model and human observers have been compared in a series of localization receiver operating characteristic (LROC) studies involving single-slice and multislice image displays. The task was detection of Ga-avid lymphomas within single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-reconstructed transverse slices of a mathematical phantom, and the studies involved four reconstruction strategies: the filtered-backprojection (FBP) and ordered-subset expectation-maximization (OSEM) algorithms with two- and three-dimensional postreconstruction filtering. The human-observer data was drawn from studies performed by Wells et al. (2000), while multiclass versions of the nonprewhitening (NPW), channelized nonprewhitening (CNPW), and channelized Hotelling (CH) model observers, each capable of performing the tumor search task, were applied. The channelized observers were evaluated with multiple square-channel models and both with and without internal noise. For the multislice studies, two different capacities for integrating the slice information were also tested. The CH observer gave good quantitative agreement with the human data from both image-display studies when the internal-noise model was used. The CNPW observer performed similarly with the iterative strategies. Wells et al. had shown that human observers are imperfect integrators of multislice information, and this is characterized as increased internal noise with the model observers.
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 | 0.020 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".