MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953149322 · doi:10.1121/1.5137211

Transfer learning for ultrasound tongue contour extraction with different domains

2019· article· en· W2953149322 on OpenAlexaff
M. Hamed Mozaffari, David Sankoff, Won‐Sook Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationConvolutional neural networkTask (project management)Pattern recognition (psychology)Deep learningAdaptation (eye)Computer visionSpeech recognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the low-contrast characteristic and noisy nature of ultrasound images, it might require expertise for non-expert users to recognize tongue gestures. In the last few years, deep learning methods have been used for delineating and tracking tongue dorsum. Deep convolutional neural networks (DCNNs), which have shown to be successful in medical image analysis tasks, are typically weak for the same task on different domains. In many cases, DCNNs trained on data acquired with one ultrasound device, do not perform well on data of varying ultrasound device or acquisition protocol. Domain adaptation is an alternative solution for this difficulty by transferring the weights from the model trained on a large annotated legacy dataset to a new model for adapting on another different dataset using fine-tuning. In this study, we addressed the problem of domain adaptation on ultrasound datasets for tongue contour extraction. We trained a U-net network, and then with several surrogate scenarios, some parts of the trained network were fine-tuned on another dataset as the domain-adapted networks. We repeat scenarios from target to source domains to find a balance point for knowledge transfer from source to target and vice versa. The performance of new fine-tuned networks was evaluated on the same task with images from different domains. Our experimental revealed that a deep model can be used effectively for different domains using a knowledge balance point between those models.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207