MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403087740 · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ad82ef

TRU-IMP: techniques for reliable use of images in medical physics; a graphical user interface to analyze and compare segmentations in nuclear medicine

2024· article· en· W4403087740 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Laporte, Jean‐François Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomedical Physics & Engineering Express · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersInstitut TransMedTechFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsInterface (matter)Graphical user interfaceMedical physicsComputer scienceInformation retrievalMedicineProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background. In the context of pharmacokinetic analyses, the segmentation method one uses has a large impact on the results obtained, thus the importance of transparency. Innovation. This paper introduces a graphical user interface (GUI), TRU-IMP, that analyzes time-activity curves and segmentations in dynamic nuclear medicine. This GUI fills a gap in the current technological tools available for the analysis of quantitative dynamic nuclear medicine image acquisitions. The GUI includes various techniques of segmentations, with possibilities to compute related uncertainties. Results. The GUI was tested on image acquisitions made on a dynamic nuclear medicine phantom. This allows the comparison of segmentations via their time-activity curves and the extracted pharmacokinetic parameters. Implications. The flexibility and user-friendliness allowed by the proposed interface make the analyses both easy to perform and adjustable to any specific case. This GUI permits researchers to better show and understand the reproducibility, precision, and accuracy of their work in quantitative dynamic nuclear medicine. Availability and Implementation. Source code freely available on GitHub: https://github.com/ArGilfea/TRU-IMP and location of the interface available from there. The GUI is fully compatible with iOS and Windows operating systems (not tested on Linux). A phantom acquisition is also available to test the GUI easily.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.021

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomedical Physics & Engineering ExpressSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207