Uncertainty Decomposition and Error Margin Detection of Homodyned-K Distribution in Quantitative Ultrasound
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homodyned K-distribution (HK-distribution) parameter estimation in quantitative ultrasound (QUS) has been recently addressed using Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs). BNNs have been shown to significantly reduce computational time in speckle statistics-based QUS without compromising accuracy and precision. Additionally, they provide estimates of feature uncertainty, which can guide the clinician’s trust in the reported feature value. The total predictive uncertainty in Bayesian modeling can be decomposed into epistemic (uncertainty over the model parameters) and aleatoric (uncertainty inherent in the data) components. By decomposing the predictive uncertainty, we can gain insights into the factors contributing to the total uncertainty. In this study, we propose a method to compute epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties for HK-distribution parameters (α and k) estimated by a BNN, in both simulation and experimental data. In addition, we investigate the relationship between the prediction error and both uncertainties, shedding light on the interplay between these uncertainties and HK parameters errors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".