MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575820504 · doi:10.1109/jbhi.2017.2652449

Statistical Shape Modeling of the Left Ventricle: Myocardial Infarct Classification Challenge

2017· article· en· W2575820504 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilAuckland Medical Research FoundationBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicStatistical modelArtificial intelligenceMyocardial infarctionComputer scienceVentricleTest setPattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Statistical powerStatistical hypothesis testingMedicineMachine learningCardiologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical shape modeling is a powerful tool for visualizing and quantifying geometric and functional patterns of the heart. After myocardial infarction (MI), the left ventricle typically remodels in response to physiological challenges. Several methods have been proposed in the literature to describe statistical shape changes. Which method best characterizes left ventricular remodeling after MI is an open research question. A better descriptor of remodeling is expected to provide a more accurate evaluation of disease status in MI patients. We therefore designed a challenge to test shape characterization in MI given a set of three-dimensional left ventricular surface points. The training set comprised 100 MI patients, and 100 asymptomatic volunteers (AV). The challenge was initiated in 2015 at the Statistical Atlases and Computational Models of the Heart workshop, in conjunction with the MICCAI conference. The training set with labels was provided to participants, who were asked to submit the likelihood of MI from a different (validation) set of 200 cases (100 AV and 100 MI). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used as the outcome measures. The goals of this challenge were to (1) establish a common dataset for evaluating statistical shape modeling algorithms in MI, and (2) test whether statistical shape modeling provides additional information characterizing MI patients over standard clinical measures. Eleven groups with a wide variety of classification and feature extraction approaches participated in this challenge. All methods achieved excellent classification results with accuracy ranges from 0.83 to 0.98. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were all above 0.90. Four methods showed significantly higher performance than standard clinical measures. The dataset and software for evaluation are available from the Cardiac Atlas Project website1.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.269 · 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