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 OpenAlexaff
Avan Suinesiaputra, Jan D’hooge, Nicolás Duchateau, Jan Ehrhardt, Alejandro F. Frangi, Ali Gooya, Vicente Grau, Karim Lekadir, Allen Lu, Anirban Mukhopadhyay, İlkay Öksüz, Pierre Ablin, Nripesh Parajuli, Xavier Pennec, Marco Pereañez, Catarina Pinto, Paolo Piras, Marc-Michel Rohe, Daniel Rueckert, Dennis Säring, Maxime Sermesant, Kaleem Siddiqi, Xènia Albà, Mahdi Tabassian, Luciano Teresi, Sotirios A. Tsaftaris, Matthias Wilms, Alistair A. Young, Xing-Yu Zhang, Pau Medrano−Gracia, Martino Alessandrini, Jack Allen, Wenjia Bai, Serkan Çimen, Peter Claes, Brett R. Cowan

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.075
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

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

Citations92
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207