Review of Texture Quantification of CT Images for Classification of Lung Diseases
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer-based identification of abnormal regions and classification of diseases using CT images of the lung has been a goal of many investigators. In this paper, we review research that has used texture analysis along with segmentation and fractal analysis. First, a review of texture methods is performed. Recent research on quantitative analysis of the lung using texture methods is categorized into six groups of computational methods: structural, statistical, model based, transform domain, texture-segmentation, and texture-fractal analysis. Finally, the applications of texture-based methods combined with either segmentation algorithms or fractal analysis is evaluated on lung CT images from patients with diseases such as emphysema, COPD, and cancer. We also discuss applications of artificial neural networks, support vector machine, k-nearest, and Bayesian methods to classify normal and diseased segments of CT images of the lung. A combination of these texture methods followed by classifiers could lead to efficient and accurate diagnosis of pulmonary diseases such as pulmonary fibrosis, emphysema, and cancer.
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 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 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it