MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382345150 · doi:10.1002/jmrs.701

The use of weather nowcasting convolutional neural network extrapolators in cardiac<scp>PET</scp>imaging

2023· article· en· W4382345150 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Sloka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Radiation Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNowcastingConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmData setNoise reductionExtrapolationPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Algorithms to predict short-term changes in local weather modalities have been used in meteorology for many years. These algorithms predict the temporospatial change in the movement of weather patterns such as cloud cover or precipitation. This paper extends convolutional neural network models for weather prediction/nowcasting to predict evolution in the extrapolation of sequentially acquired count data seen with cardiac positron tomography (PET) data to expected value temporally rather than spatially. METHODS: Six different algorithms used for nowcasting were modified and applied to confirm the approach. These algorithms were trained on an image data set of both simulated ellipsoids and simulated cardiac PET data. The peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity (SSIM) were calculated for each of these trained models. They were compared to the BM3D denoising algorithm as a baseline comparison to a standard method of image denoising. RESULTS: Most of the implemented algorithms showed a significant improvement in both PSNR and SSIM when compared with the baseline standard, especially when the algorithms were implemented in combination. The best results were obtained with a combination of the ConvLSTM and TrajGRU algorithms with a PSNR improvement over the standard of 5 and more than double the SSIM metric. CONCLUSION: This approach of using serially acquired count data to extrapolate a future expected representation through convolutional neural networks has been shown to produce accurate representations of the expected value when compared with a baseline analytic methodology. This paper confirms that algorithms such as these can be used to substantially improve image estimation and shows significant improvement over a baseline standard.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical Radiation SciencesSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207