MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405835851 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2024.0635

Generative Adversarial Networks for Neuroimage Translation

2024· article· en· W4405835851 on OpenAlexaff
Cassandra Czobit, Reza Samavi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsVector Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdversarial systemTranslation (biology)Generative grammarComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image-to-image translation has gained popularity in the medical field to transform images from one domain to another. Medical image synthesis via domain transformation is advantageous in its ability to augment an image dataset where images for a given class are limited. From the learning perspective, this process contributes to the data-oriented robustness of the model by inherently broadening the model’s exposure to more diverse visual data and enabling it to learn more generalized features. In the case of generating additional neuroimages, it is advantageous to obtain unidentifiable medical data and augment smaller annotated datasets. This study proposes the development of a cycle-consistent generative adversarial network (CycleGAN) model for translating neuroimages from one field strength to another (e.g., 3 Tesla [T] to 1.5 T). This model was compared with a model based on a deep convolutional GAN model architecture. CycleGAN was able to generate the synthetic and reconstructed images with reasonable accuracy. The mapping function from the source (3 T) to the target domain (1.5 T) performed optimally with an average peak signal-to-noise ratio value of 25.69 ± 2.49 dB and a mean absolute error value of 2106.27 ± 1218.37. The codes for this study have been made publicly available in the following GitHub repository.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207