MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791056402 · doi:10.1117/12.2283017

Fast detection of vascular plaque in optical coherence tomography images using a reduced feature set

2018· article· en· W2791056402 on OpenAlexaff
Ammu Prakash, Mariano Ocana, Mark Hewko, Sherif S. Sherif, Michael G. Sowa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisComputer scienceOptical coherence tomographyArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature (linguistics)Computer visionFeature vectorFuzzy clusteringSet (abstract data type)Fuzzy setFuzzy logicRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) images are capable of detecting vascular plaque by using the full set of 26 Haralick textural features and a standard K-means clustering algorithm. However, the use of the full set of 26 textural features is computationally expensive and may not be feasible for real time implementation. In this work, we identified a reduced set of 3 textural feature which characterizes vascular plaque and used a generalized Fuzzy C-means clustering algorithm. Our work involves three steps: 1) the reduction of a full set 26 textural feature to a reduced set of 3 textural features by using genetic algorithm (GA) optimization method 2) the implementation of an unsupervised generalized clustering algorithm (Fuzzy C-means) on the reduced feature space, and 3) the validation of our results using histology and actual photographic images of vascular plaque. Our results show an excellent match with histology and actual photographic images of vascular tissue. Therefore, our results could provide an efficient pre-clinical tool for the detection of vascular plaque in real time OCT imaging.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207