Assessment of bootstrap resampling performance for PET data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bootstrap resampling has been successfully used for estimation of statistical uncertainty of parameters such as tissue metabolism, blood flow or displacement fields for image registration. The performance of bootstrap resampling as applied to PET list-mode data of the human brain and dedicated phantoms is assessed in a novel and systematic way such that: (1) the assessment is carried out in two resampling stages: the 'real world' stage where multiple reference datasets of varying statistical level are generated and the 'bootstrap world' stage where corresponding bootstrap replicates are generated from the reference datasets. (2) All resampled datasets were reconstructed yielding images from which multiple voxel and regions of interest (ROI) values were extracted to form corresponding distributions between the two stages. (3) The difference between the distributions from both stages was quantified using the Jensen-Shannon divergence and the first four moments. It was found that the bootstrap distributions are consistently different to the real world distributions across the statistical levels. The difference was explained by a shift in the mean (up to 33% for voxels and 14% for ROIs) being proportional to the inverse square root of the statistical level (number of counts). Other moments were well replicated by the bootstrap although for very low statistical levels the estimation of the variance was poor. Therefore, the bootstrap method should be used with care when estimating systematic errors (bias) and variance when very low statistical levels are present such as in early time frames of dynamic acquisitions, when the underlying population may not be sufficiently represented.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".