<title>Performance analysis of algorithms for retrieval of magnetic resonance images for interactive teleradiology</title>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have implemented a prototype system consisting of a Java- based image viewer and a web server extension component for transmitting Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI) to an image viewer, to test the performance of different image retrieval techniques. We used full-resolution images, and images compressed/decompressed using the Set Partitioning in Hierarchical Trees (SPIHT) image compression algorithm. We examined the SPIHT decompression algorithm using both non- progressive and progressive transmission, focusing on the running times of the algorithm, client memory usage and garbage collection. We also compared the Java implementation with a native C++ implementation of the non- progressive SPIHT decompression variant. Our performance measurements showed that for uncompressed image retrieval using a 10Mbps Ethernet, a film of 16 MR images can be retrieved and displayed almost within interactive times. The native C++ code implementation of the client-side decoder is twice as fast as the Java decoder. If the network bandwidth is low, the high communication time for retrieving uncompressed images may be reduced by use of SPIHT-compressed images, although the image quality is then degraded. To provide diagnostic quality images, we also investigated the retrieval of up to 3 images on a MR film at full-resolution, using progressive SPIHT decompression. The Java-based implementation of progressive decompression performed badly, mainly due to the memory requirements for maintaining the image states, and the high cost of execution of the Java garbage collector. Hence, in systems where the bandwidth is high, such as found in a hospital intranet, SPIHT image compression does not provide advantages for image retrieval performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".