MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906409044 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2018.2888807

Cardiac Phase Detection in Echocardiograms With Densely Gated Recurrent Neural Networks and Global Extrema Loss

2018· article· en· W2906409044 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatemeh Taheri Dezaki, Zhibin Liao, Christina Luong, Hany Girgis, Neeraj Dhungel, Amir H. Abdi, Delaram Behnami, Ken Gin, Robert Rohling, Purang Abolmaesumi, Teresa S.M. Tsang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhonocardiography and Auscultation Techniques
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceDeep learningRecurrent neural networkArtificial intelligenceMaxima and minimaPattern recognition (psychology)Convolutional neural networkFeature extractionConvolution (computer science)Frame (networking)Feature (linguistics)Artificial neural networkComputer visionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate detection of end-systolic (ES) and end-diastolic (ED) frames in an echocardiographic cine series can be difficult but necessary pre-processing step for the development of automatic systems to measure cardiac parameters. The detection task is challenging due to variations in cardiac anatomy and heart rate often associated with pathological conditions. We formulate this problem as a regression problem and propose several deep learning-based architectures that minimize a novel global extrema structured loss function to localize the ED and ES frames. The proposed architectures integrate convolution neural networks (CNNs)-based image feature extraction model and recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to model temporal dependencies between each frame in a sequence. We explore two CNN architectures: DenseNet and ResNet, and four RNN architectures: long short-term memory, bi-directional LSTM, gated recurrent unit (GRU), and Bi-GRU, and compare the performance of these models. The optimal deep learning model consists of a DenseNet and GRU trained with the proposed loss function. On average, we achieved 0.20 and 1.43 frame mismatch for the ED and ES frames, respectively, which are within reported inter-observer variability for the manual detection of these frames.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations89
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicPhonocardiography and Auscultation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207