MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280598218 · doi:10.18280/ria.360212

Semantics Convolutional Neural Network for Medical Images Analysis

2022· article· en· W4280598218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amina Taouli, Djamel Amar Bensaber, Khayra Bencherif, Nabil Keskes

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceSemantics (computer science)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)False positive paradoxLayer (electronics)Data miningDeep learningSemantic featureArtificial neural networkNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Big Data Analysis is a solution that makes it possible to extract valuable information from the mass of data by using deep learning algorithms and especially the Convolutional Neural Network algorithm. In this article, we have proposed an approach that allows the addition of the semantic aspect in the classification layer of the Convolutional Neural Network algorithm. The proposed approach helps medical professionals to develop an automatic system for identifying various classes of lung cancers. First, the input data are processed to reduce the search space, and the image noise, and normalize data. Then, the preprocessed data are analyzed to reduce image space by preserving all important features. After that, the semantic memory method converts the feature vectors from the analysis layer into semantic feature vectors. Finally, the last layer classifies the input image into two classes. We evaluate our approach using the LUNA16 dataset. Our study led to better results and predictions by reducing false negatives and positives using the Semantic Convolutional Neural Network algorithm. In our approach, cancer tissues can be identified with a maximum of 97.27% for accuracy and 99.46% for AUC. This model has increased efficiency compared with state-of-the-art approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207