Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40274693›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Gaussian Function Model for Task-Specific Evaluation in Medical Imaging: A Theoretical Investigation.

Sho Maruyama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sho MaruyamaDepartment of Radiological Technology, Gunma Prefectural College of Health Sciences, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan. maruyama@gchs.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0140-5993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In medical image diagnosis, understanding image characteristics is crucial for selecting and optimizing imaging systems and advancing their development. Objective image quality assessments, based on specific diagnostic tasks, have become a standard in medical image analysis, bridging the gap between experimental observations and clinical applications. However, conventional task-based assessments often rely on ideal observer models that assume target signals have circular shapes with well-defined edges. This simplification rarely reflects the true complexity of lesion morphology, where edges exhibit variability. This study proposes a more practical approach by employing a Gaussian distribution to represent target signal shapes. This study explicitly derives the task function for Gaussian signals and evaluates the detectability index through simulations based on head computed tomography (CT) images with low-contrast lesions. Detectability indices were calculated for both circular and Gaussian signals using non-prewhitening and Hotelling observer models. The results demonstrate that Gaussian signals consistently exhibit lower detectability indices compared to circular signals, with differences becoming more pronounced for larger signal sizes. Simulated images closely resembling actual CT images confirm the validity of these calculations. These findings quantitatively clarify the influence of signal shape on detection performance, highlighting the limitations of conventional circular models. Thus, it provides a theoretical framework for task-based assessments in medical imaging, offering improved accuracy and clinical relevance for future advancements in the field.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedAlgorithmsComputer SimulationHumansNormal DistributionDetectability indexGaussian signal modelObserver modelsTask-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID40274693
PMCPMC12920941

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.