MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dual Representation Learning in CNNs: Generalised Glycolytic Patterns and Organ-specific Activations

2025· article· W4417470816 on OpenAlexaff
Robert John, Tapan Rai, Richard S. Smith, A. Robinson, G. K. Surya Prakash, Mythili Shastry, Peter Strouhal, Kevin Wells

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminative modelPattern recognition (psychology)Convolutional neural networkRepresentation (politics)Feature (linguistics)Deep learningGlycolysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional convolutional neural networks (3D CNNs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in analyzing complex textures within volumetric medical data, enabling advanced pattern recognition in oncological imaging [1,2,3,4]. This study investigates whether 3D CNNs trained for esophageal cancer detection in PET imaging develop generalizable representations of glycolytic activity. Using 486 PET/CT scans [5,6], we analyzed CNN activation patterns in primary tumors and three physiologically high-uptake organs: heart myocardium, liver, and urinary bladder. Statistical analysis revealed strong inter-organ correlations (tumor-myocardium: 0.98, tumor-liver: 0.96), yet significant differences in activation distributions between all organ pairs ($\mathrm{p}<0.05$). The urinary bladder exhibited the highest mean activation (0.181), followed by tumor (0.172), heart myocardium (0.158), and liver (0.149). Distance correlations (0.83-0.97) and mutual information (0.92-1.39) indicated substantial shared metabolic features across regions while preserving discriminative power. These results demonstrate that CNNs learn both generalized FDG uptake patterns and organ-specific signatures, capturing broad metabolic activity yet retaining the ability to distinguish pathological from physiological uptake. The strong tumormyocardium correlation suggests challenges in differentiating certain physiological uptakes from malignancy, with implications for false positive rates. Our findings provide new insights into the feature extraction mechanisms of deep learning models in oncological PET, supporting the development of more interpretable and clinically trustworthy AI tools for cancer detection.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→