ArticleScientific reports2024
Three-dimensional biphase fabric estimation from 2D images by deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A pruned VGG19 model subjected to Axial Coronal Sagittal (ACS) convolutions and a custom VGG16 model are benchmarked to predict 3D fabric descriptors from a set of 2D images. The data used for training and testing are extracted from a set of 600 3D biphase microstructures created numerically. Fabric descriptors calculated from the 3D microstructures constitute the ground truth, while the input data are obtained by slicing the 3D microstructures in each direction of space at regular intervals. The computational cost to train the custom ACS-VGG19 model increases linearly with p (the number of images extracted in each direction of space), and increasing p does not improve the performance of the model - or only does so marginally. The best performing ACS-VGG19 model provides a MAPE of 2 to 5% for the means of aggregate size, aspect ratios and solidity, but cannot be used to estimate orientations. The custom VGG16 yields a MAPE of 2% or less for the means of aggregate size, distance to nearest neighbor, aspect ratios and solidity. The MAPE is less than 3% for the mean roundness, and in the range of 5-7% for the aggregate volume fraction and the mean diagonal components of the orientation matrix. Increasing p improves the performance of the custom VGG16 model, but becomes cost ineffective beyond 3 images per direction. For both models, the aggregate volume fraction is predicted with less accuracy than higher order descriptors, which is attributed to the bias given by the loss function towards highly-correlated descriptors. Both models perform better to predict means than standard deviations, which are noisy quantities. The custom VGG16 model performs better than the pruned version of the ACS-VGG19 model, likely because it contains 3 times (p = 1) to 28 times (p = 10) less parameters than the ACS-VGG19 model, allowing better and faster cnvergence, with less data. The custom VGG16 model predicts the second and third invariants of the orientation matrix with a MAPE of 2.8% and 8.9%, respectively, which suggests that the model can predict orientation descriptors regardless of the orientation of the input images.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.