Algorithm construction methodology for diagnostic classification of near-infrared spectroscopy data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) has recognized potential but limited application for non-invasive diagnostic evaluation. Data analysis methodology that reproducibly distinguishes between the presence or absence of physiologic abnormality could broaden clinical application of this optical technique.Methods: Sample data sets from simultaneous NIRS bladder monitoring and invasive urodynamic pressure-flow studies (UDS) are used to illustrate how a diagnostic algorithm is constructed using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Misclassification errors of CART and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) are computed and examples of other urological NIRS data likely amenable to CART analysis presented.Results: CART generated a clinically relevant classification algorithm (error 4%) using 46 data sets of changes in chromophore concentration composed of the whole time series without specifying features. LDA did not (error 16%). Using CART NIRS data provided comparable discriminant ability to the UDS diagnostic nomogram for the presence or absence of obstructive pathology (88% specificity, 84% precision). Pilot data examples from children with and without voiding dysfunction and women with mild or severe pelvic floor muscle dysfunction also show potentially diagnostic differences in chromophore concentration.Conclusions: CART analysis can likely be applied in other NIRS monitoring applications intended to classify patients into those with and without pathology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".