MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2999548501 · doi:10.1109/bibe.2019.00045

Parkinson's Disease Mid-Brain Assessment using MR T2 Images

2019· article· en· W2999548501 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Soltaninejad, Xu Pengda, Irene Cheng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machinePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceHistogramHistogram of oriented gradientsLocal binary patternsRandom forestFeature extractionComputer scienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reduction of dopamine generating neurons in the brain regions known as substantia nigra (SN) is the reason for Parkinson's Disease (PD). To detect such symptom, for each subject, our algorithm only needs to analyze 3 slices around the center of a MRI DICOM volume, i.e., mid-brain area. In each slice, a window covering the SN becomes the region of interest (ROI) for further analysis. The ROIs are pre-processed by denoising and removing intensity non-uniformity. Local Binary Pattern (LBP) and Histogram Oriented Gradient (HOG) are used for feature extraction. Random Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) are used as classifiers with Principle Component Analysis (PCA) as feature reduction method. For evaluation, we use MRI T2 scans from the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) data set. We conducted experiments to illustrate the different classification capabilities of LBP, HOG and the fusion of these features for PD prognosis. Analysis shows that the SVM classifier with fusion feature descriptors has the most accurate classification outcome for PD assessment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments→French-language works237,207→