Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Sanaat, Amirhossein

  • Google
  • 1
  • 8
  • 33

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2022High-dimensional multinomial multiclass severity scoring of COVID-19 pneumonia using CT radiomics features and machine learning algorithms33citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Avval, Atlas Haddadi
1 / 2 shared
Rahmim, Arman
1 / 3 shared
Salimi, Yazdan
1 / 1 shared
Mostafaei, Shayan
1 / 2 shared
Akhavanallaf, Azadeh
1 / 2 shared
Shiri, Isaac
1 / 3 shared
Arabi, Hossein
1 / 7 shared
Zaidi, Habib
1 / 3 shared
Chart of publication period
2022

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Avval, Atlas Haddadi
  • Rahmim, Arman
  • Salimi, Yazdan
  • Mostafaei, Shayan
  • Akhavanallaf, Azadeh
  • Shiri, Isaac
  • Arabi, Hossein
  • Zaidi, Habib
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

High-dimensional multinomial multiclass severity scoring of COVID-19 pneumonia using CT radiomics features and machine learning algorithms

  • Avval, Atlas Haddadi
  • Rahmim, Arman
  • Salimi, Yazdan
  • Mostafaei, Shayan
  • Sanaat, Amirhossein
  • Akhavanallaf, Azadeh
  • Shiri, Isaac
  • Arabi, Hossein
  • Zaidi, Habib
Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>We aimed to construct a prediction model based on computed tomography (CT) radiomics features to classify COVID-19 patients into severe-, moderate-, mild-, and non-pneumonic. A total of 1110 patients were studied from a publicly available dataset with 4-class severity scoring performed by a radiologist (based on CT images and clinical features). The entire lungs were segmented and followed by resizing, bin discretization and radiomic features extraction. We utilized two feature selection algorithms, namely bagging random forest (BRF) and multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS), each coupled to a classifier, namely multinomial logistic regression (MLR), to construct multiclass classification models. The dataset was divided into 50% (555 samples), 20% (223 samples), and 30% (332 samples) for training, validation, and untouched test datasets, respectively. Subsequently, nested cross-validation was performed on train/validation to select the features and tune the models. All predictive power indices were reported based on the testing set. The performance of multi-class models was assessed using precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy based on the 4 × 4 confusion matrices. In addition, the areas under the receiver operating characteristiccurves (AUCs) for multi-class classifications were calculated and compared for both models. Using BRF, 23 radiomic features were selected, 11 from first-order, 9 from GLCM, 1 GLRLM, 1 from GLDM, and 1 from shape. Ten features were selected using the MARS algorithm, namely 3 from first-order, 1 from GLDM, 1 from GLRLM, 1 from GLSZM, 1 from shape, and 3 from GLCM features. The mean absolute deviation, skewness, and variance from first-order and flatness from shape, and cluster prominence from GLCM features and Gray Level Non Uniformity Normalize from GLRLM were selected by both BRF and MARS algorithms. All selected features by BRF or MARS were significantly associated with four-class outcomes as assessed within MLR (All <jats:italic>p </jats:italic>values &lt; 0.05). BRF + MLR and MARS + MLR resulted in pseudo-R<jats:sup>2</jats:sup> prediction performances of 0.305 and 0.253, respectively. Meanwhile, there was a significant difference between the feature selection models when using a likelihood ratio test (<jats:italic>p </jats:italic>value = 0.046). Based on confusion matrices for BRF + MLR and MARS + MLR algorithms, the precision was 0.856 and 0.728, the recall was 0.852 and 0.722, whereas the accuracy was 0.921 and 0.861, respectively. AUCs (95% CI) for multi-class classification were 0.846 (0.805–0.887) and 0.807 (0.752–0.861) for BRF + MLR and MARS + MLR algorithms, respectively. Our models based on the utilization of radiomic features, coupled with machine learning were able to accurately classify patients according to the severity of pneumonia, thus highlighting the potential of this emerging paradigm in the prognostication and management of COVID-19 patients.</jats:p>

Topics
  • cluster
  • extraction
  • tomography
  • random
  • chemical ionisation
  • machine learning