This systematic review aimed to assess the reproducibility of graph-theoretic brain network metrics. Primary research studies of test-retest reliability conducted on healthy human subjects were included that quantified test-retest reliability using either the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or the coefficient of variance. The MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey databases were searched up to February 2014. Risk of bias was assessed with 10 criteria weighted toward methodological quality. Twenty-three studies were included in the review (n = 499 subjects) and evaluated for various characteristics, including sample size (5-45), retest interval ( < 1 h to > 1 year), acquisition method, and test-retest reliability scores. For at least one metric, ICCs reached the fair range (ICC 0.40-0.59) in one study, the good range (ICC 0.60-0.74) in five studies, and the excellent range (ICC > 0.74) in 16 studies. Heterogeneity of methods prevented further quantitative analysis. Reproducibility was good overall. For the metrics having three or more ICCs reported for both functional and structural networks, six of seven were higher in structural networks, indicating that structural networks may be more reliable over time. The authors were also able to highlight and discuss a number of methodological factors affecting reproducibility.
The aim was to determine whether an artificial intelligence (AI)-based, computer-aided detection (CAD) software can be used to reduce false positive per image (FPPI) on mammograms as compared to an FDA-approved conventional CAD. A retrospective study was performed on a set of 250 full-field digital mammograms between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2013, and the number of marked regions of interest of two different systems was compared for sensitivity and specificity in cancer detection. The count of false-positive marks per image (FPPI) of the two systems was also evaluated as well as the number of cases that were completely mark-free. All results showed statistically significant reductions in false marks with the use of AI-CAD vs CAD (confidence interval = 95%) with no reduction in sensitivity. There is an overall 69% reduction in FPPI using the AI-based CAD as compared to CAD, consisting of 83% reduction in FPPI for calcifications and 56% reduction for masses. Almost half (48%) of cases showed no AI-CAD markings while only 17% show no conventional CAD marks. There was a significant reduction in FPPI with AI-CAD as compared to CAD for both masses and calcifications at all tissue densities. A 69% decrease in FPPI could result in a 17% decrease in radiologist reading time per case based on prior literature of CAD reading times. Additionally, decreasing false-positive recalls in screening mammography has many direct social and economic benefits.
The Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) layer is an important advancement in the field of neural networks and machine learning, allowing for effective training and impressive inference performance. LSTM-based neural networks have been successfully employed in various applications such as speech processing and language translation. The LSTM layer can be simplified by removing certain components, potentially speeding up training and runtime with limited change in performance. In particular, the recently introduced variants, called SLIM LSTMs, have shown success in initial experiments to support this view. Here, we perform computational analysis of the validation accuracy of a convolutional plus recurrent neural network architecture using comparatively the standard LSTM and three SLIM LSTM layers. We have found that some realizations of the SLIM LSTM layers can potentially perform as well as the standard LSTM layer for our considered architecture.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.