Quantitative Molecular Positron Emission Tomography Imaging Using Advanced Deep Learning Techniques
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
The widespread availability of high-performance computing and the popularity of artificial intelligence (AI) with machine learning and deep learning (ML/DL) algorithms at the helm have stimulated the development of many applications involving the use of AI-based techniques in molecular imaging research. Applications reported in the literature encompass various areas, including innovative design concepts in positron emission tomography (PET) instrumentation, quantitative image reconstruction and analysis techniques, computer-aided detection and diagnosis, as well as modeling and prediction of outcomes. This review reflects the tremendous interest in quantitative molecular imaging using ML/DL techniques during the past decade, ranging from the basic principles of ML/DL techniques to the various steps required for obtaining quantitatively accurate PET data, including algorithms used to denoise or correct for physical degrading factors as well as to quantify tracer uptake and metabolic tumor volume for treatment monitoring or radiation therapy treatment planning and response prediction.This review also addresses future opportunities and current challenges facing the adoption of ML/DL approaches and their role in multimodality imaging.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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