Texture analysis of the developing human brain using customization of a knowledge-based system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pattern recognition software originally designed for geospatial and other technical applications could be trained by physicians and used as texture analysis tools for evidence-based practice, in order to improve diagnostic imaging examination during pregnancy. Methods: Various machine-learning techniques and customized datasets were assessed for training of an integrable knowledge-based system (KBS) to determine a hypothetical methodology for texture classification of closely related anatomical structures in fetal brain magnetic resonance (MR) images. Samples were manually categorized according to the magnetic field of the MRI scanner (i.e., 1.5-tesla [1.5T], 3-tesla [3T]), rotational planes (i.e., coronal, sagittal, and axial), and signal weighting (i.e., spin-lattice, spin-spin, relaxation, and proton density). In the machine-learning sessions, the operator manually selected relevant regions of interest (ROI) in 1.5/3T MR images. Semi-automatic procedures in MaZda/B11 were performed to determine optimal parameter sets for ROI classification. Four classes were defined: ventricles, thalamus, gray matter, and white matter. Various texture analysis methods were tested. The KBS performed automatic data preprocessing and semi-automatic classification of ROI. Results: After testing 3456 ROI, statistical binary classification revealed that the combination of reduction techniques with linear discriminant algorithms (LDA) or nonlinear discriminant algorithms (NDA) yielded the best scoring in terms of sensitivity (both 100%, 95% CI: 99.79–100), specificity (both 100%, 95% CI: 99.79–100), and Fisher coefficient (≈E+4 and ≈E+5, respectively). Conclusions: LDA and NDA in MaZda can be useful data mining tools for screening a population of interest subjected to a clinical test.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".