MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Q-Net: A Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping-Based Deep Neural Network for Differential Diagnosis of Brain Iron Deposition in Hemochromatosis

2024· article· en· W4404916125 on OpenAlexaff
Soheil Zabihi, Elahe Rahimian, Sadaf Khademi, Soumya Sharma, Sean K. Sethi, Sara Gharabaghi, Amir Asif, E. Mark Haacke, Mandar Jog, Arash Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIron Metabolism and Disorders
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemochromatosisDeposition (geology)Quantitative susceptibility mappingArtificial neural networkHereditary hemochromatosisDifferential (mechanical device)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineInternal medicineBiologyRadiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain iron deposition, in particular deep gray matter nuclei, increases with advancing age. Hereditary Hemochromatosis (HH) is the most common inherited disorder of systemic iron excess in Europeans and recent studies claimed high brain iron accumulation in patient with Hemochromatosis. In this study, we focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based differential diagnosis of brain iron deposition in HH via Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM), which is an established Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technique to study the distribution of iron in the brain. Our main objective is investigating potentials of AI-driven frameworks to accurately and efficiently differentiate individuals with Hemochromatosis from those of the Healthy Control (HC) group. More specifically, we developed the Q-Net framework, which is a data-driven model that processes information on iron deposition in the brain obtained from multi-echo gradient echo imaging data and anatomical information on T1-Weighted images of the brain. We illustrate that the Q-Net framework can assist in differentiating between someone with HH and HC of the same age, something that is not possible by just visualizing images. The study is performed based on a unique dataset that was collected from 52 subjects with HH and 47 HC. The Q-Net provides a differential diagnosis accuracy of 83.16% and 80.37% in the scan-level and image-level classification, respectively.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIron Metabolism and Disorders→French-language works237,207→