Improved Detection of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease at Chest CT Using the Mean Curvature of Isophotes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine if the mean curvature of isophotes (MCI), a standard computer vision technique, can be used to improve detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at chest CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, chest CT scans were obtained in 243 patients with COPD and 31 controls (among all 274: 151 women [mean age, 70 years; range, 44-90 years] and 123 men [mean age, 71 years; range, 29-90 years]) from two community practices between 2006 and 2019. A convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture was trained on either CT images or CT images transformed through the MCI algorithm. Separately, a linear classification based on a single feature derived from the MCI computation (called hMCI1) was also evaluated. All three models were evaluated with cross-validation, using precision-macro and recall-macro metrics, that is, the mean of per-class precision and recall values, respectively (the latter being equivalent to balanced accuracy). RESULTS: Linear classification based on hMCI1 resulted in a higher recall-macro relative to the CNN trained and applied on CT images (0.85 [95% CI: 0.84, 0.86] vs 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.79]) but with a similar reduction in precision-macro (0.66 [95% CI: 0.65, 0.67] vs 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.79]). The CNN model trained and applied on MCI-transformed images had a higher recall-macro (0.85 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.87] vs 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.79]) and precision-macro (0.85 [95% CI: 0.83, 0.87] vs 0.77 [95% CI: 0.75, 0.79]) relative to the CNN trained and applied on CT images. CONCLUSION: See also the invited commentary by Vannier in this issue.© RSNA, 2021.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".