MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395073625 · doi:10.18280/ria.380205

Deep Learning-Based Medical Image Reconstruction: Overview, Analysis, and Challenges

2024· article· en· W4395073625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laila Baloch, Ahthasham Sajid, Christine Dewi, Henoch Juli Christanto, Afia Zafar

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Computer visionData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical imaging is essential in contemporary healthcare as it assists in the identification of diseases, development of treatment strategies, and ongoing monitoring of patients.Over the years, deep learning (DL)techniques have emerged as a transformative force in medical image reconstruction, enabling the generation of high-quality images from noisy, incomplete, or under-sampled data.This review paper provides a comprehensive survey of recent advancements and applications of deep learning methods in medical image reconstruction.The key challenges in medical image reconstruction include issues related to reconstruction accuracy, noise sensitivity, and data limitation.A variety of deep learning models and their combinations are suitable for medical image reconstruction due to their unique capabilities, such as spatial hierarchy capture, adversarial learning, and other features, which allow them to address the complexities and challenges associated with medical image reconstruction.The paper analyses the key contributions of DL-based approaches in different imaging modalities, including computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).DL techniques are enabling image reconstruction in specialized medical fields like neuroimaging and cardiac imaging, but practitioners face challenges in training complex models and understanding their results.Finally, future research directions are suggested to improve the key limitations highlighted in this survey study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207