MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037683870 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i08.7044

Machine-Learning-Based Functional Microcirculation Analysis

2020· article· en· W3037683870 on OpenAlexafffund
Ossama Mahmoud, G.C.A.M. Janssen, Mahmoud R. El-Sakka

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersLawson Health Research Institute
KeywordsMicrocirculationLimitingComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)Current (fluid)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analysis of microcirculation is an important clinical and research task. Functional analysis of the microcirculation allows researchers to understand how blood flowing in a tissues’ smallest vessels affects disease progression, organ function, and overall health. Current methods of manual analysis of microcirculation are tedious and time-consuming, limiting the quick turnover of results. There has been limited research on automating functional analysis of microcirculation. As such, in this paper, we propose a two-step machine-learning-based algorithm to functionally assess microcirculation videos. The first step uses a modified vessel segmentation algorithm to extract the location of vessel-like structures. While the second step uses a 3D-CNN to assess whether the vessel-like structures contained flowing blood. To our knowledge, this is the first application of machine learning for functional analysis of microcirculation. We use real-world labelled microcirculation videos to train and test our algorithm and assess its performance. More precisely, we demonstrate that our two-step algorithm can efficiently analyze real data with high accuracy (90%).

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207