MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209702343 · doi:10.1117/12.2611292

3D PET image generation with tumour masks using TGAN

2022· preprint· en· W3209702343 on OpenAlexaff
Robert V. Bergen, Jean-François Rajotte, Fereshteh Yousefirizi, Ivan S. Klyuzhin, Arman Rahmim, Raymond T. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Imaging 2022: Image Processing · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSynthetic dataSegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Data setFeature (linguistics)Generator (circuit theory)Computer visionGenerative modelImage (mathematics)Image segmentationSet (abstract data type)DiceMathematicsGenerative grammarStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training computer-vision related algorithms on medical images for disease diagnosis or image segmentation is difficult due to the lack of training data, labeled samples, and privacy concerns. For this reason, a robust generative method to create synthetic data is highly sought after. However, most three-dimensional image generators require additional image input or are extremely memory intensive. To address these issues we propose adapting video generation techniques for 3- D image generation. Using the temporal GAN (TGAN) architecture, we show we are able to generate realistic head and neck PET images. We also show that by conditioning the generator on tumour masks, we are able to control the geometry and location of the tumour in the generated images. To test the utility of the synthetic images, we train a segmentation model using the synthetic images. Synthetic images conditioned on real tumour masks are automatically segmented, and the corresponding real images are also segmented. We evaluate the segmentations using the Dice score and find the segmentation algorithm performs similarly on both datasets (0.65 synthetic data, 0.70 real data). Various radionomic features are then calculated over the segmented tumour volumes for each data set. A comparison of the real and synthetic feature distributions show that seven of eight feature distributions had statistically insignificant differences (𝑝 < 0.05). Correlation coefficients were also calculated between all radionomic features and it is shown that all of the strong statistical correlations in the real data set are preserved in the synthetic data set.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Imaging 2022: Image ProcessingSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207