Deep learning for biomedical image reconstruction:a survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical imaging is an invaluable resource in medicine as it enables to peer inside the human body and provides scientists and physicians with a wealth of information indispensable for understanding, modelling, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. Reconstruction algorithms entail transforming signals collected by acquisition hardware into interpretable images. Reconstruction is a challenging task given the ill-posedness of the problem and the absence of exact analytic inverse transforms in practical cases. While the last decades witnessed impressive advancements in terms of new modalities, improved temporal and spatial resolution, reduced cost, and wider applicability, several improvements can still be envisioned such as reducing acquisition and reconstruction time to reduce patient’s exposure to radiation and discomfort while increasing clinics throughput and reconstruction accuracy. Furthermore, the deployment of biomedical imaging in handheld devices with small power requires a fine balance between accuracy and latency. The design of fast, robust, and accurate reconstruction algorithms is a desirable, yet challenging, research goal. While the classical image reconstruction algorithms approximate the inverse function relying on expert-tuned parameters to ensure reconstruction performance, deep learning (DL) allows automatic feature extraction and real-time inference. Hence, DL presents a promising approach to image reconstruction with artifact reduction and reconstruction speed-up reported in recent works as part of a rapidly growing field. We review state-of-the-art image reconstruction algorithms with a focus on DL-based methods. First, we examine common reconstruction algorithm designs, applied metrics, and datasets used in the literature. Then, key challenges are discussed as potentially promising strategic directions for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".