MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2295094498 · doi:10.1109/nssmic.2014.7430953

Feasibility of using geometric descriptors of tracer distribution for disease assessment

2014· article· en· W2295094498 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan S. Klyuzhin, Elham Shahinfard, Marjorie Gonzalez, Vesna Sossi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric (unit)Modality (human–computer interaction)Artificial intelligenceTexture (cosmology)Pattern recognition (psychology)DiseaseComputer scienceCharacterization (materials science)Duration (music)MathematicsMedicinePathologyMaterials sciencePhysicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to investigate if geometry and texture-based metrics contain brain disease-related information similar to measures typically derived from kinetic modeling- based approaches. Using co-registered PET and MRI images from an ongoing Parkinson's disease imaging study, the shape, size and texture of the striatal regions containing high tracer concentration were estimated, and regressed against the subject's disease duration. A novel inter-modality region fusion method was used for a systematic metric characterization and evaluation. It was established that several regional measures such as the region volume, surface area, moment invariants, and others were very good predictors of the clinical disease duration. Interestingly, some metrics revealed good correlation with the disease duration only when evaluated on the fused inter-modality PET-MRI regions. These results demonstrate that geometric features that do not rely on kinetic modeling may be used for disease characterization.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→