MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimized-Constrained Transfer Learning: Application for Stroke Prediction

2024· article· en· W4408324923 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Askarizadeh, Sadegh Tofigh, Kim Khoa Nguyen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransfer of learningArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today’s machine learning applications in the healthcare sector often require a vast amount of training data and lengthy training, which are not always available. Transfer learning (TL) offers a promising solution by leveraging knowledge across different domains/tasks, effectively addressing data scarcity. However, TL encounters computational and communication challenges in resource-constrained scenarios, and negative transfer (NT) can arise, posing significant challenges for sensitive tasks such as stroke prediction. This paper presents a novel method to maximize the accuracy of TL in resource-constrained environments while mitigating NT, a key concern in TL. Previous studies have overlooked simultaneously the resource consumption and the NT problem in the network-based TL era. To address this shortcoming, we formulate an optimization model named RCTL, which employs the empirical fine-tuning error of the target task as the objective while considering NT overcoming condition and resource limitations as the feasibility constraints. Our approach is extensively validated in a stroke prediction scenario, demonstrating the efficiency of RCTL in achieving the desired trade-offs between TL’s benefits and associated costs. The obtained results show the potential of enhancing edge AI applications in resource-constrained healthcare infrastructure.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207