MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087243669 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.12971051.v2

SPECHT: Self-tuning Plausibility Based Object Detection Enables Quantification of Conflict in Heterogeneous Multi-scale Microscopy

2021· preprint· en· W3087243669 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Cardoen, Timothy Wong, Parsa Alan, Sieun Lee, Ivan R. Nabi, Ghassan Hamarneh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCaveolin-1 and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Object (grammar)Artificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)Scale (ratio)FusionModular designDomain (mathematical analysis)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image fusionComputer visionMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a novel method that is able to localize fluorescent labelled objects in multi-scale 2D microscopy, and is robust to highly variable imaging conditions. Localized objects are then classified in a novel way using belief theory, requiring only the image level label. Each object is assigned a ‘belief’ that describes how likely it is to appear in an image with a given set of labels. We apply our method successfully to identify amyloid-beta deposits, associated with Alzheimer’s disease, and to discover caveolae and their modular components in superresolution microscpy. We illustrate how our approach allows the fusion or combination of models learned across markedly different datasets. We show how we can compute the ‘conflict’, or disagreement between the models, an insight that can allow the domain expert to interpret the composite model.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaveolin-1 and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207