Observer study-based evaluation of TGAN architecture used to generate oncological PET images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of computer-vision algorithms in medical imaging has increased rapidly in recent years. However, algorithm training is challenging due to limited sample sizes, lack of labeled samples, as well as privacy concerns regarding data sharing. To address these issues, we previously developed (Bergen et al. 2022) a synthetic PET dataset for Head & Neck (H&N) cancer using the temporal generative adversarial network (TGAN) architecture and evaluated its performance segmenting lesions and identifying radiomics features in synthesized images. In this work, a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) observer study was performed to quantitatively evaluate the ability of human observers to distinguish between real and synthesized oncological PET images. In the study eight trained readers, including two board-certified nuclear medicine physicians, read 170 real/synthetic image pairs presented as 2D-transaxial using a dedicated web app. For each image pair, the observer was asked to identify the “real” image and input their confidence level with a 5-point Likert scale. P-values were computed using the binomial test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. A heat map was used to compare the response accuracy distribution for the signed-rank test. Response accuracy for all observers ranged from 36.2% [27.9-44.4] to 63.1% [54.8-71.3]. Six out of eight observers did not identify the real image with statistical significance, indicating that the synthetic dataset was reasonably representative of oncological PET images. Overall, this study adds validity to the realism of our simulated H&N cancer dataset, which may be implemented in the future to train AI algorithms while favoring patient confidentiality and privacy protection.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".