MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130252994 · doi:10.1109/tns.2011.2163526

Automatic Alignment of Myocardial Perfusion Images With Contrast-Enhanced Cardiac Computed Tomography

2011· article· en· W2130252994 on OpenAlexaff
Tracy L. Faber, César A. Santana, Marina Piccinelli, Jonathon A. Nye, John R. Votaw, Ernest Garcia, Eldad Haber

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsSingle-photon emission computed tomographyCoronary artery diseasePositron emission tomographyEmission computed tomographyModality (human–computer interaction)PerfusionTomographyCADRadiologyNuclear medicineImage fusionContrast (vision)MedicineMyocardial perfusion imagingArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInternal medicineImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explicit fusion of perfusion data from Positron Emission Tomography (PET) or Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) with coronary artery anatomy from Computed Tomographic Coronary Angiography (CTA) has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield for coronary artery disease (CAD) compared to either modality alone. However, most clinically available methods were developed for multimodal scanners or require interactive alignment prior to display and analysis. A new approach was developed to register the two distributions obtained either from a single multimodal imager or from separate scanners, and a preliminary validation was undertaken to compare the automatic alignment to interactive alignment by two experts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Nuclear ScienceSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207