Page 89 - AIH-2-2
P. 89

Artificial Intelligence in Health                                 Efficient knowledge distillation for breast US



            Writing – original draft: Bahareh Behboodi         10.  Zieleskiewicz L, Muller L, Lakhal K,  et al. Point-of-care
            Writing – review & editing: All authors               ultrasound in intensive care units: Assessment of 1073
                                                                  procedures in a multicentric, prospective, observational
            Ethics approval and consent to participate            study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1638-1647.

            Not applicable.                                       doi: 10.1007/s00134-015-3952-5
                                                               11.  Fujioka T, Kubota K, Hsu JF, et al. Examining the effectiveness
            Consent for publication                               of  a deep  learning-based  computer-aided  breast  cancer
            Not applicable.                                       detection system for breast ultrasound. J Med Ultrasonics.
                                                                  2023;50:511-520.
            Availability of data                                  doi: 10.1007/s10396-023-01332-9

            The dataset A used in this study can be found in Yap et al.    12.  Ding W, Zhang H, Zhuang S, Zhuang Z, Gao Z. Multi-view
                                                         27
            Data are available from the corresponding author upon   stereoscopic attention network for 3D tumor classification
            reasonable request.                                   in automated breast ultrasound.  Expert Syst Appl.
                                                                  2023;234:120969.
            References
                                                                  doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120969
            1.   Litjens G, Kooi T, Bejnordi BE,  et  al. A  survey on deep
               learning in medical image analysis.  Med Image Anal.   13.  Balasubramaniam S, Velmurugan Y, Jaganathan D,
               2017;42:60-88.                                     Dhanasekaran S. A modified LeNet CNN for breast cancer
                                                                  diagnosis in ultrasound images.  Diagnostics (Basel).
               doi: 10.1016/j.media.2017.07.005                   2023;13:2746.
            2.   Toennies  KD.  Guide to Medical Image Analysis. Berlin:      doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13172746
               Springer; 2017.
                                                               14.  Neill  JO.  An  Overview  of  Neural  Network  Compression,
            3.   Zhou  K.  Medical Image Recognition, Segmentation and   arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03669; 2020.
               Parsing: Machine Learning and Multiple Object Approaches.
               United States: Academic Press; 2015.               doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2006.03669
                                                               15.  Cheng Y, Wang D, Zhou P, Zhang T. A  survey of model
            4.   Xian  M, Zhang  Y, Cheng HD,  Xu F,  Zhang B,  Ding  J.
               Automatic breast ultrasound image segmentation: A survey.   compression and acceleration for deep neural networks,
               Pattern Recogn. 2018;79:340-355.                   arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.09282; 2017.
               doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2018.02.012                  doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1710.09282
            5.   Shen D, Wu G, Suk HI. Deep learning in medical image   16.  Wang L,  Yoon KJ.  Knowledge Distillation and  Student-
               analysis. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2017;19:221-248.    teacher Learning for Visual Intelligence: A Review and New
                                                                  Outlooks. In: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and
               doi: 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044442          Machine Intelligence; 2021.
            6.   Hesamian MH, Jia W, He X, Kennedy P. Deep learning      doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3055564
               techniques for medical image segmentation: Achievements
               and challenges. J Digit Imaging. 2019;32:582-596.  17.  Hanson S, Pratt L. Comparing Biases for Minimal
                                                                  Network  Construction  with  Back-Propagation.  Advances
               doi: 10.1007/s10278-019-00227-x                    in Neural Information Processing Systems. In: NeurIPS
            7.   Ghosh D, Kumar A, Ghosal P, Chowdhury T, Sadhu A,   Proceedings; 1988.
               Nandi D. Breast Lesion Segmentation in Ultrasound Images   18.  LeCun Y, Denker J, Solla S. Optimal Brain Damage. Advances
               Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In: 2020 IEEE   in Neural Information Processing Systems. In: NeurIPS
               Calcutta Conference (CALCON). IEEE; 2020. p. 318-322.  Proceedings; 1989.
               doi: 10.1109/CALCON49167.2020.9106568           19.  Hassibi B, Stork D. Second Order Derivatives  for Network
            8.   Isensee F, Jaeger PF, Kohl SA, Petersen J, Maier-Hein KH.   Pruning: Optimal Brain Surgeon, Advances in Neural
               nnU-Net: A  self-configuring method for deep learning-  Information Processing Systems. In: NeurIPS Proceedings;
               based biomedical image segmentation.  Nat  Methods.   1992.
               2021;18:203-211.
                                                               20.  Gong Y, Liu L, Yang M, Bourdev L. Compressing Deep
               doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-01008-z                    Convolutional Networks Using Vector Quantization, arXiv
                                                                  preprint arXiv:1412.6115; 2014.
            9.   Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl
               J Med. 2011;364:749-757.                           doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6115
               doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0909487                      21.  Wu J, Leng C, Wang Y, Hu Q, Cheng J.  Quantized


            Volume 2 Issue 2 (2025)                         83                               doi: 10.36922/aih.3509
   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94