MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087560109 · doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2020.102437

A Bayesian 2D functional linear model for gray-level co-occurrence matrices in texture analysis of lower grade gliomas

2020· article· en· W3087560109 on OpenAlexafffund
Thierry Chekouo, Shariq Mohammed, Arvind Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage Clinical · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of MichiganAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsGray levelBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRadiomicsPattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsIsocitrate dehydrogenaseRealization (probability)MathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In cancer radiomics, textural features evaluated from image intensity-derived gray-level co-occurrence matrices (GLCMs) have been studied to evaluate gray-level spatial dependence within the regions of interest in the brain. Most of these analysis work with summary statistics (or texture-based features) constructed using the GLCM entries, and potentially overlook other structural properties in the GLCM. In our proposed Bayesian framework, we treat each GLCM as a realization of a two-dimensional stochastic functional process observed with error at discrete time points. The latent process is then combined with the outcome model to evaluate the prediction performance. We use simulation studies to assess the performance of our method and apply it to data collected from individuals with lower grade gliomas. We found our approach to outperform competing methods that use only summary statistics to predict isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status.

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)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImage ClinicalSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207