MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286437749 · doi:10.18287/2412-6179-co-1035

Neural network regularization in the problem of few-view computed tomography

2022· article· en· W4286437749 on OpenAlexaff
Andrei Yamaev, Marina Chukalina, Dmitry Nikolaev, Leon Kochiev, A. I. Chulichkov

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Optics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsAlgebraic Reconstruction TechniqueIterative reconstructionProjection (relational algebra)Tomographic reconstructionArtificial intelligenceTomographyRegularization (linguistics)Artificial neural networkMathematicsAlgorithmComputationAlgebraic numberComputer scienceComputer visionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The computed tomography allows to reconstruct the inner morphological structure of an object without physical destructing. The accuracy of digital image reconstruction directly depends on the measurement conditions of tomographic projections, in particular, on the number of recorded projections. In medicine, to reduce the dose of the patient load there try to reduce the number of measured projections. However, in a few-view computed tomography, when we have a small number of projections, using standard reconstruction algorithms leads to the reconstructed images degradation. The main feature of our approach for few-view tomography is that algebraic reconstruction is being finalized by a neural network with keeping measured projection data because the additive result is in zero space of the forward projection operator. The final reconstruction presents the sum of the additive calculated with the neural network and the algebraic reconstruction. First is an element of zero space of the forward projection operator. The second is an element of orthogonal addition to the zero space. Last is the result of applying the algebraic reconstruction method to a few-angle sinogram. The dependency model between elements of zero space of forward projection operator and algebraic reconstruction is built with neural networks. It demonstrated that realization of the suggested approach allows achieving better reconstruction accuracy and better computation time than state-of-the-art approaches on test data from the Low Dose CT Challenge dataset without increasing reprojection error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer OpticsSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207