Guest Editorial Generative Adversarial Networks in Biomedical Image Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The papers in this special section focus on generative adversarial networks in biomedical image computing. The field of biomedical imaging has obtained great progress from Roentgen’s original discovery of the X-ray to the current imaging tools, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Computed Tomography (CT), and Ultrasound (US). The benefits of using these non-invasive imaging technologies are to assess the current condition of an organ or tissue, which can be used to monitor a patient over time over time for accurate and timely diagnosis and treatment.With the development of imaging technologies, developing advanced artificial intelligence algorithms for automated image analysis has shown the potential to change many aspects of clinical applications within the next decade. Meanwhile, these advanced technologies have also brought new issues and challenges. Thus, there has been a growing demand for biomedical imaging computing to be a component of clinical trials and device improvement. Currently, Generative adversarial networks (GANs) have been attached growing interests in the computer vision community due to their capability of data generation or translation. GAN-based models are able to learn from a set of training data and generate new data with the same characteristics as the training ones, which have also proven to be the state of the art for generating sharp and realistic images. More importantly, GAN has been rapidly applied to many traditional and novel applications in the medical domain, such as image reconstruction, segmentation, diagnosis, synthesis, and so on. Despite GAN substantial progress in these areas, their application to medical image computing still faces challenges and unsolved problems remain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".