MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119440128 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a2061

Texture Analysis: A Review of Neurologic MR Imaging Applications

2010· review· en· W2119440128 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Stroke Network
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)MedicineSegmentationEpilepsyArtificial intelligenceImage texturePattern recognition (psychology)NeurosciencePathologyComputer visionImage segmentationComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Texture analysis describes a variety of image-analysis techniques that quantify the variation in surface intensity or patterns, including some that are imperceptible to the human visual system. Texture analysis may be particularly well-suited for lesion segmentation and characterization and for the longitudinal monitoring of disease or recovery. We begin this review by outlining the general procedure for performing texture analysis, identifying some potential pitfalls and strategies for avoiding them. We then provide an overview of some intriguing neuro-MR imaging applications of texture analysis, particularly in the characterization of brain tumors, prediction of seizures in epilepsy, and a host of applications to MS.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.349 · 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