Ageing and degeneration analysis using ageing-related dynamic attention on lateral cephalometric radiographs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increase of the ageing in the world's population, the ageing and degeneration studies of physiological characteristics in human skin, bones, and muscles become important topics. Research on the ageing of bones, especially the skull, are paid much attention in recent years. In this study, a novel deep learning method representing the ageing-related dynamic attention (ARDA) is proposed. The proposed method can quantitatively display the ageing salience of the bones and their change patterns with age on lateral cephalometric radiographs images (LCR) images containing the craniofacial and cervical spine. An age estimation-based deep learning model based on 14142 LCR images from 4 to 40 years old individuals is trained to extract ageing-related features, and based on these features the ageing salience maps are generated by the Grad-CAM method. All ageing salience maps with the same age are merged as an ARDA map corresponding to that age. Ageing salience maps show that ARDA is mainly concentrated in three regions in LCR images: the teeth, craniofacial, and cervical spine regions. Furthermore, the dynamic distribution of ARDA at different ages and instances in LCR images is quantitatively analyzed. The experimental results on 3014 cases show that ARDA can accurately reflect the development and degeneration patterns in LCR images.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".