MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385235400 · doi:10.1117/1.jmi.10.4.044004

Automatic classification of symmetry of hemithoraces in canine and feline radiographs

2023· article· en· W4385235400 on OpenAlexaff
Peyman Tahghighi, Nicole Norena, Eran Ukwatta, Ryan Appleby, Amin Komeili

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Imaging · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyThorax (insect anatomy)Artificial intelligenceSegmentationConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyClassifier (UML)Nuclear medicineAnatomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Thoracic radiographs are commonly used to evaluate patients with confirmed or suspected thoracic pathology. Proper patient positioning is more challenging in canine and feline radiography than in humans due to less patient cooperation and body shape variation. Improper patient positioning during radiograph acquisition has the potential to lead to a misdiagnosis. Asymmetrical hemithoraces are one of the indications of obliquity for which we propose an automatic classification method. Approach: We propose a hemithoraces segmentation method based on convolutional neural networks and active contours. We utilized the U-Net model to segment the ribs and spine and then utilized active contours to find left and right hemithoraces. We then extracted features from the left and right hemithoraces to train an ensemble classifier, which include support vector machine, gradient boosting, and multi-layer perceptron. Five-fold cross-validation was used, thorax segmentation was evaluated by intersection over union (IoU), and symmetry classification was evaluated using precision, recall, area under curve, and F1 score. Results: Classification of symmetry for 900 radiographs reported an F1 score of 82.8%. To test the robustness of the proposed thorax segmentation method to underexposure and overexposure, we synthetically corrupted properly exposed radiographs and evaluated results using IoU. The results showed that the model's IoU for underexposure and overexposure dropped by 2.1% and 1.2%, respectively. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the proposed thorax segmentation method is robust to poor exposure radiographs. The proposed thorax segmentation method can be applied to human radiography with minimal changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical ImagingSame topicCOVID-19 diagnosis using AIFrench-language works237,207