Uncertainty Estimation in Unsupervised MR-CT Synthesis of Scoliotic Spines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty estimations through approximate Bayesian inference provide interesting insights to deep neural networks' behavior. In unsupervised learning tasks, where expert labels are unavailable, it becomes ever more important to critique the model through uncertainties. This paper presents a proof-of-concept for generalizing the aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties in unsupervised MR-CT synthesis of scoliotic spines. A novel adaptation of the cycle-consistency constraint in CycleGAN is proposed such that the model predicts the aleatoric uncertainty maps in addition to the standard volume-to-volume translation between Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) data. Ablation experiments were performed to understand uncertainty estimation as an implicit regularizer and a measure of the model's confidence. The aleatoric uncertainty helps in distinguishing between the bone and soft-tissue regions in CT and MR data during translation, while the epistemic uncertainty provides interpretable information to the user for downstream tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".