Reducing the Human Effort in Developing PET-CT Registration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to reduce the tedious nature of developing and evaluating methods for aligning PET-CT scans from multiple patient visits. Current methods for registration rely on correspondences that are created manually by medical experts with 3D manipulation, or assisted alignments done by utilizing mutual information across CT scans that may not be consistent when transferred to the PET images. Instead, we propose to label multiple key points across several 2D slices, which we then fit a key curve to. This removes the need for creating manual alignments in 3D and makes the labelling process easier. We use these key curves to define an error metric for the alignments that can be computed efficiently. While our metric is non-differentiable, we further show that we can utilize it during the training of our deep model via a novel method. Specifically, instead of relying on detailed geometric labels -- e.g., manual 3D alignments -- we use synthetically generated deformations of real data. To incorporate robustness to changes that occur between visits other than geometric changes, we enforce consistency across visits in the deep network's internal representations. We demonstrate the potential of our method via qualitative and quantitative experiments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".