Multi-modal data fusion schemes for integrated classification of imaging and non-imaging biomedical data. Tiwari, P., Viswanath, S., Lee, G., & Madabhushi, A. In Proceedings - International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 2011.
doi  abstract   bibtex   
With a wide array of multi-modal, multi-protocol, and multi-scale biomedical data available for disease diagnosis and prognosis, there is a need for quantitative tools to combine such varied channels of information, especially imaging and non-imaging data (e.g. spectroscopy, proteomics). The major problem in such quantitative data integration lies in reconciling the large spread in the range of dimensionalities and scales across the different modalities. The primary goal of quantitative data integration is to build combined meta-classifiers; however these efforts are thwarted by challenges in (1) homogeneous representation of the data channels, (2) fusing the attributes to construct an integrated feature vector, and (3) the choice of learning strategy for training the integrated classifier. In this paper, we seek to (a) define the characteristics that guide the 4 independent methods for quantitative data fusion that use the idea of a meta-space for building integrated multi-modal, multi-scale meta-classifiers, and (b) attempt to understand the key components which allowed each method to succeed. These methods include (1) Generalized Embedding Concatenation (GEC), (2) Consensus Embedding (CE), (3) Semi-Supervised Multi-Kernel Graph Embedding (SeSMiK), and (4) Boosted Embedding Combination (BEC). In order to evaluate the optimal scheme for fusing imaging and non-imaging data, we compared these 4 schemes for the problems of combining (a) multi-parametric MRI with spectroscopy for prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis in vivo, and (b) histological image with proteomic signatures (obtained via mass spectrometry) for predicting prognosis in CaP patients. The kernel combination approach (SeSMiK) marginally outperformed the embedding combination schemes. Additionally, intelligent weighting of the data channels (based on their relative importance) appeared to outperform unweighted strategies. All 4 strategies easily outperformed a nave decision fusion approach, suggesting that data integration methods will play an important role in the rapidly emerging field of integrated diagnostics and personalized healthcare. © 2011 IEEE.
@inproceedings{
 title = {Multi-modal data fusion schemes for integrated classification of imaging and non-imaging biomedical data},
 type = {inproceedings},
 year = {2011},
 keywords = {Consensus Embedding,GFF,Kernel combination,SeSMiK,data fusion,prostate cancer},
 id = {abb96033-466f-313d-9d57-90edd5fef3ba},
 created = {2023-10-25T08:56:40.790Z},
 file_attached = {false},
 profile_id = {eaba325f-653b-3ee2-b960-0abd5146933e},
 last_modified = {2023-10-25T08:56:40.790Z},
 read = {false},
 starred = {false},
 authored = {true},
 confirmed = {false},
 hidden = {false},
 private_publication = {true},
 abstract = {With a wide array of multi-modal, multi-protocol, and multi-scale biomedical data available for disease diagnosis and prognosis, there is a need for quantitative tools to combine such varied channels of information, especially imaging and non-imaging data (e.g. spectroscopy, proteomics). The major problem in such quantitative data integration lies in reconciling the large spread in the range of dimensionalities and scales across the different modalities. The primary goal of quantitative data integration is to build combined meta-classifiers; however these efforts are thwarted by challenges in (1) homogeneous representation of the data channels, (2) fusing the attributes to construct an integrated feature vector, and (3) the choice of learning strategy for training the integrated classifier. In this paper, we seek to (a) define the characteristics that guide the 4 independent methods for quantitative data fusion that use the idea of a meta-space for building integrated multi-modal, multi-scale meta-classifiers, and (b) attempt to understand the key components which allowed each method to succeed. These methods include (1) Generalized Embedding Concatenation (GEC), (2) Consensus Embedding (CE), (3) Semi-Supervised Multi-Kernel Graph Embedding (SeSMiK), and (4) Boosted Embedding Combination (BEC). In order to evaluate the optimal scheme for fusing imaging and non-imaging data, we compared these 4 schemes for the problems of combining (a) multi-parametric MRI with spectroscopy for prostate cancer (CaP) diagnosis in vivo, and (b) histological image with proteomic signatures (obtained via mass spectrometry) for predicting prognosis in CaP patients. The kernel combination approach (SeSMiK) marginally outperformed the embedding combination schemes. Additionally, intelligent weighting of the data channels (based on their relative importance) appeared to outperform unweighted strategies. All 4 strategies easily outperformed a nave decision fusion approach, suggesting that data integration methods will play an important role in the rapidly emerging field of integrated diagnostics and personalized healthcare. © 2011 IEEE.},
 bibtype = {inproceedings},
 author = {Tiwari, P. and Viswanath, S. and Lee, G. and Madabhushi, A.},
 doi = {10.1109/ISBI.2011.5872379},
 booktitle = {Proceedings - International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging}
}
Downloads: 0
About
Documentation
Keywords
Search
Users
Terms and Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
© BibBase.org 2021