MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377832587 · doi:10.18280/ts.400232

Feature Extraction for Medical Image Classification: A Novel Statistical Approach

2023· article· en· W4377832587 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashraf Rafa Mohmed, Yüksel Çelik

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionArtificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)Image (mathematics)Computer scienceFeature detection (computer vision)Contextual image classificationExtraction (chemistry)Image processingChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical image classification is an increasingly important area of research, with the need to represent images computationally often posing significant challenges due to the large amounts of data and processing power required.A new approach for image classification in the healthcare domain has been developed in this study, called ASPS_HC, which seeks to obtain higher discrimination among different classes by identifying the most impactful features within the data's Upper and Lower Limit outlier regions.This is achieved through the use of various statistical measures, including the Coefficient of Variance (CV), to create 48 features that represent each image.An experiment was conducted on a dataset of 5,540 diabetic retinopathy images in the Gaussian formula, acquired from Kaggle.The proposed ASPS_HC approach yielded three main advantages over the previous ASPS method for feature extraction: the average rank of the features was increased by 200%, the run time was reduced by 23.30%, and the number of features required was decreased by 50%.As a result, the features extracted using ASPS_HC produced significantly higher accuracy in both the Artificial Neural Network and Random Forest models, with an increase of 1.91% for the former and 1.36% for the latter.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207