Quantifying the Unknowns of Plaque Morphology: The Role of Topological Uncertainty in Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aimed to explore topological uncertainty in medical imaging, particularly in assessing coronary artery calcification using artificial intelligence (AI). Topological uncertainty refers to ambiguities in spatial and structural characteristics of medical features, which can impact the interpretation of coronary plaques. The article discusses the challenges of integrating AI with topological considerations and the need for specialized methodologies beyond traditional performance metrics. It highlights advancements in quantifying topological uncertainty, including the use of persistent homology and topological data analysis techniques. The importance of standardization in methodologies and ethical considerations in AI deployment are emphasized. It also outlines various types of uncertainty in topological frameworks for coronary plaques, categorizing them as quantifiable and controllable or quantifiable and not controllable. Future directions include developing AI algorithms that incorporate topological insights, establishing standardized protocols, and exploring ethical implications to revolutionize cardiovascular care through personalized treatment plans guided by sophisticated topological analysis. Recognizing and quantifying topological uncertainty in medical imaging as AI emerges is critical. Exploring topological uncertainty in coronary artery disease will revolutionize cardiovascular care, promising enhanced precision and personalization in diagnostics and treatment for millions affected by cardiovascular diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".