MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410241999 · doi:10.18280/mmep.120404

Automated Detection of Knee Osteoarthritis Using CNN with Adaptive Moment Estimation

2025· article· en· W4410241999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dian Puspita Hapsari, Eka Mala Sari Rochman, Miswanto Miswanto, Yuli Panca Asmara, Aeri Rachmad, Wahyudi Setiawan

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Trunojoyo Madura
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMoment (physics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceEstimationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringPhysicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In deep learning, particularly with convolutional neural networks (CNNs), overfitting is a common challenge, especially when training data is scarce.CNNs usually need large amounts of training data to avoid overfitting when working with new datasets.However, there is often not enough disease data available.To address this, using the right architecture is crucial for accurate disease prediction.In this study, we optimized our models using the adaptive moment estimation (ADAM) algorithm, which efficiently handles multiple parameters and requires less memory.The test scenario was structured with two primary objectives.The first objective was to evaluate the regularization and convergence of the CNN classifier model.A model is deemed convergent when it attains an acceptable level of error and regularization.The second objective was to assess the overall performance of the model utilizing metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score.We compared five CNN architectures and found that ShuffleNet achieved the highest accuracy at 98%, followed by EfficientNet at 96% and MobileNet at 93%.Although these architectures showed similar performance, the quality of input images significantly affects disease localization.Additionally, deep learning models are sensitive to noise, which can hinder performance.Future efforts will focus on enhancing prediction accuracy, class imbalance and model robustness.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207