Artificial intelligence for molecular neuroimaging
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) or the study of how computers and machines can gain intelligence, has been increasingly applied to problems in medical imaging, and in particular to molecular imaging of the central nervous system. Many AI innovations in medical imaging include improving image quality, segmentation, and automating classification of disease. These advances have led to an increased availability of supportive AI tools to assist physicians in interpreting images and making decisions affecting patient care. This review focuses on the role of AI in molecular neuroimaging, primarily applied to positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). We emphasize technical innovations such as AI in computed tomography (CT) generation for the purposes of attenuation correction and disease localization, as well as applications in neuro-oncology and neurodegenerative diseases. Limitations and future prospects for AI in molecular brain imaging are also discussed. Just as new equipment such as SPECT and PET revolutionized the field of medical imaging a few decades ago, AI and its related technologies are now poised to bring on further disruptive changes. An understanding of these new technologies and how they work will help physicians adapt their practices and succeed with these new tools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it