MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984827724 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.02121

GAN-enhanced Conditional Echocardiogram Generation

2019· preprint· en· W2984827724 on OpenAlexaff
Amir H. Abdi, Teresa S.M. Tsang, Purang Abolmaesumi

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminatorSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGenerative adversarial networkGenerative grammarEcho (communications protocol)VentricleAdversarial systemPattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningDeep learningCardiologyMedicineTelecommunicationsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Echocardiography (echo) is a common means of evaluating cardiac conditions. Due to the label scarcity, semi-supervised paradigms in automated echo analysis are getting traction. One of the most sought-after problems in echo is the segmentation of cardiac structures (e.g. chambers). Accordingly, we propose an echocardiogram generation approach using generative adversarial networks with a conditional patch-based discriminator. In this work, we validate the feasibility of GAN-enhanced echo generation with different conditions (segmentation masks), namely, the left ventricle, ventricular myocardium, and atrium. Results show that the proposed adversarial algorithm can generate high-quality echo frames whose cardiac structures match the given segmentation masks. This method is expected to facilitate the training of other machine learning models in a semi-supervised fashion as suggested in similar researches.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.116 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Methods

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 venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicGenerative Adversarial Networks and Image SynthesisFrench-language works237,207