MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987983801 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab5427

Automatic classification of dental artifact status for efficient image veracity checks: effects of image resolution and convolutional neural network depth

2019· article· en· W2987983801 on OpenAlexafffund
Mattea Welch, Chris McIntosh, Leonard Wee, Alberto Traverso, André Dekker, Benjamin Haibe‐Kains, David A. Jaffray

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsVector InstitutePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreInstitute of Cancer ResearchOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchTerry Fox Research InstituteOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceResamplingImage qualityRobustness (evolution)Pattern recognition (psychology)Quality assuranceGridVisualizationArtifact (error)Computer visionImage (mathematics)MathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Enabling automated pipelines, image analysis and big data methodology in cancer clinics requires thorough understanding of the data. Automated quality assurance steps could improve the efficiency and robustness of these methods by verifying possible data biases. In particular, in head and neck (H&N) computed-tomography (CT) images, dental artifacts (DA) obscure visualization of structures and the accuracy of Hounsfield units; a challenge for image analysis tasks, including radiomics, where poor image quality can lead to systemic biases. In this work we analyze the performance of three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (CNN) trained to classify DA statuses. 1538 patient images were scored by a single observer as DA positive or negative. Stratified five-fold cross validation was performed to train and test CNNs using various isotropic resampling grids (64 3 , 128 3 and 256 3 ), with CNN depths designed to produce 32 3 , 16 3 , and 8 3 machine generated features. These parameters were selected to determine if more computationally efficient CNNs could be utilized to achieve the same performance. The area under the precision recall curve (PR-AUC) was used to assess CNN performance. The highest PR-AUC (0.92 ± 0.03) was achieved with a CNN depth = 5, resampling grid = 256. The CNN performance with 256 3 resampling grid size is not significantly better than 64 3 and 128 3 after 20 epochs, which had PR-AUC = 0.89 ± 0.03 ( p -value = 0.28) and 0.91 ± 0.02 ( p -value = 0.93) at depths of 3 and 4, respectively. Our experiments demonstrate the potential to automate specific quality assurance tasks required for unbiased and robust automated pipeline and image analysis research. Additionally, we determined that there is an opportunity to simplify CNNs with smaller resampling grids to make the process more amenable to very large datasets that will be available in the future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207