Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Evaluating Generative AI-Enhanced Content: A Conceptual Framework Using Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a conceptual framework in which qualitative expert review, quantitative automated metrics, and their mixed-methods combination evaluate whether generative AI improves the coherence, readability, and technical accuracy…

desk verdict A clear summary of standard methods, but no demonstration and a shaky quantitative layer. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17943 v1 pith:P54O5HBV submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CL cs.AI

Saman Sarraf This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords generativeAIevaluationframeworkmixed-methodsresearchqualitativeanalysisquantitativemetricsscientificwritingmedicalimagingtextqualityassessment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that evaluating generative AI's effect on scientific writing requires more than a single score. It sets out a conceptual framework with three research designs—qualitative expert review, quantitative automated metrics, and a mixed-methods combination—and walks through a hypothetical medical-imaging manuscript to show what each would reveal. The central claim is that mixed-methods evaluation captures both the measurable improvements and the nuanced harms, such as oversimplification of technical content, that automated metrics alone would miss. The framework matters because high-stakes fields like healthcare need trustworthy ways to benchmark AI editing against traditional editing before adopting it.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the before/after comparison of a manuscript polished by generative AI, evaluated through three instruments: expert thematic analysis, automated text-similarity and readability metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, and readability indices), and numerical user ratings analyzed statistically. The mixed-methods design is the central integrating mechanism: quantitative metrics screen and size the effect, then qualitative interviews explain and qualify it, producing a holistic verdict on coherence, readability, and technical accuracy.

What would settle it

Run the proposed before/after design on one real collaborative medical-imaging manuscript. If expert reviewers consistently rate the AI-polished version as less technically accurate while BLEU, ROUGE, and readability scores all improve, then the automated metrics are not tracking the quality the framework claims to assess. Similarly, if expert raters disagree with one another at near-chance levels, the qualitative ground truth collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the contribution is a methodological template, not an empirical finding. The paper claims that a qualitative design—expert reviewers answering open questions followed by semi-structured interviews, analyzed thematically—reveals whether and where AI harmonizes writing style while preserving technical accuracy. A quantitative design, using automated BLEU, ROUGE, and readability scores plus Likert-scale surveys analyzed with paired t-tests or ANOVA, measures the size and statistical significance of the change. The mixed-methods design, which runs the quantitative screen first and then layers expert interviews on top, is presented as the most complete assessment. The use case is explicitly hypothetical, so the paper's claim is that these designs would work as described, not that they have been run.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that expert reviewers' judgments and standard automated scores (BLEU, ROUGE, readability indices) are reliable measures of whether an AI edit improved a specialized medical manuscript, yet the paper provides no data, pilot test, or inter-rater reliability check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can benchmark GenAI editing tools against traditional editing processes on the same manuscript.
  • The framework identifies oversimplifications or technical errors introduced by AI that automated metrics cannot flag.
  • Statistical tests on before/after ratings can quantify whether an AI edit is a real improvement or a wash.
  • The same design transfers to other high-stakes domains, such as clinical summaries or patient-facing materials.
  • Adoption decisions about GenAI in scientific writing can rest on structured, evidence-based assessments rather than anecdote.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable prediction follows that the paper does not state: in a real run, BLEU and ROUGE gains will often coexist with expert-rated losses in technical precision, which is exactly the tension the mixed-methods design is built to expose.
  • The framework's qualitative step would need inter-rater reliability reporting to be trustworthy; the paper mentions bias but does not say how to control it.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same design to different GenAI models or prompt strategies, turning the conceptual template into a comparative benchmark.
  • The hypothetical use case could be operationalized by pre-registering the analysis plan, which would convert the asserted framework into a falsifiable protocol.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a conceptual framework for evaluating GenAI-assisted improvements to scientific writing using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research designs. It illustrates the framework with a hypothetical medical imaging manuscript that is polished by GenAI and then assessed by expert reviewers, automated metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, readability scores, surveys), and a combined mixed-methods protocol. The paper argues that mixed methods provide a more comprehensive evaluation than either approach alone, and it concludes by recommending such frameworks for high-stakes domains such as healthcare and scientific research. The contribution is a high-level methodological outline rather than an empirical study or a validated instrument.

Significance. If the framework were operationalized and validated, it would address a real need: benchmarking GenAI text-editing tools in scientific and medical writing, where both linguistic quality and technical accuracy matter. The paper's strengths include its clear three-part structure, its explicit acknowledgment in Section 1 that automated metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, and perplexity often fail to capture semantic nuance, and its emphasis on combining expert judgment with quantitative indicators. However, the paper is best read as a proposal: it contains no empirical data, no pilot test, no inter-rater reliability assessment, and no concrete protocol for integrating qualitative themes with quantitative results. The central value is therefore promissory rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Conclusion] The quantitative layer is load-bearing for the framework's claim to provide a 'comprehensive assessment,' but its validity is assumed rather than established. Section 3.2 presents BLEU, ROUGE, readability indices, and Likert-scale surveys as objective measures of coherence, fluency, and structure, while Section 1 concedes that these automated metrics 'often fail to capture deeper contextual and semantic nuances.' BLEU and ROUGE measure n-gram overlap, and Flesch-Kincaid readability captures syllable and sentence length, not technical accuracy or coherence. The paper supplies no validation data, no pilot testing, no correlations with expert ratings, and no inter-rater reliability statistics. Without evidence that the quantitative metrics track the intended constructs in specialized medical writing, the framework could produce confident but misleading conclusions. This point must be addressed, for example by explicitly repositioning the quantitative layer as exploratory, by proposing a validation substudy, or by citing existing metric-validation literature for the target domain.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract claims that the authors 'demonstrate how each method provides unique insights' using a hypothetical use case. However, the use case is only an illustrative sketch with no actual data, no execution of the described procedures, and no results. A hypothetical example can illustrate a proposed workflow, but it cannot demonstrate the usefulness or validity of the methods. This overstatement should be corrected throughout the manuscript, including the Conclusion, by replacing 'demonstrate' with language such as 'propose' or 'illustrate.'
  3. [Section 3.3] The mixed-methods design does not specify how qualitative and quantitative findings are actually integrated. Section 3.3 states that 'the qualitative insights are then integrated with the quantitative findings' and that this 'provides a more holistic evaluation,' but it gives no concrete integration procedure—such as a joint display, a triangulation matrix, a follow-up design, or a decision rule for reconciling conflicting evidence. Without an explicit integration protocol, the central claim that mixed methods produce a comprehensive assessment is asserted rather than operationalized. The paper should either specify a named mixed-methods design or clearly delimit the framework as a high-level outline that requires further methodological development.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] The reference list contains numerous self-citations and many entries unrelated to the topic, such as works on fennel seed powder in dairy cows, cobalt-modified aluminide coatings, and brain network extraction. These distract from the argument and should be replaced with citations to methodological literature on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research and on natural language generation evaluation.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 2.2] The descriptions of automated metrics are imprecise. BLEU and ROUGE are n-gram overlap measures and do not directly assess fluency or coherence; perplexity measures a language model's predictive confidence, not text coherence. The manuscript should either define the metrics accurately or replace broad attributions with specific claims about what each metric measures.
  3. [Section 3.1] The open-ended questions listed for expert reviewers are partly closed-ended, e.g., 'How well does the revised manuscript achieve language coherence?' invites a rating rather than an open response. Rephrasing these as truly open questions would align the design with standard qualitative interviewing practice.
  4. [Throughout] There are frequent typographical and formatting errors, including 'E-NHANCED' and 'M-ETHODS' in the title, 'V oola' and 'ANOV A' in the body text, and inconsistent citation formatting (e.g., missing spaces before citations). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a conceptual framework with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or predictions defined in terms of its inputs.

full rationale

The paper presents a conceptual framework for evaluating GenAI-enhanced content using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches. It contains no formal derivation, no fitted parameters, and no prediction that is defined in terms of the framework's own inputs. The central claim—that mixed-methods research provides a more comprehensive assessment—is asserted through a hypothetical medical-imaging manuscript use case, not derived from the use case itself. The manuscript's self-citations (e.g., Sarraf [2024], Sarraf and Kabia [2023]) appear in the introduction and background sections as contextual references to prior work, but none of these citations is load-bearing for the central methodological claim; the framework is justified by description, not by appeal to those prior results. The only step that could resemble a validity problem is the treatment of BLEU, ROUGE, and readability scores as objective measures of coherence, fluency, and structure, but Section 1 explicitly concedes that 'these automated metrics often fail to capture deeper contextual and semantic nuances, making human evaluation indispensable.' That concession is an external-validity or measurement-validity concern, not circularity, because the paper does not define its evaluation claims in terms of those metrics. No equation is shown, no parameter is fitted from data and then renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Accordingly, the paper's central claim is unsupported by empirical evidence but is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a conceptual framework with no fitted parameters or invented entities. It relies on domain assumptions about the validity of qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods, none of which are empirically established in the text.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Combining qualitative and quantitative methods provides a comprehensive and valid assessment of GenAI-generated content.
    Section 2.3 and the Conclusion assert the value of mixed methods without empirical evidence beyond two citations; the entire framework presupposes that integrating these methods yields superior insight.
  • domain assumption Automated metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, perplexity) and readability scores are reliable measures of linguistic quality improvement.
    Section 2.2 and 3.2 endorse these metrics as objective measures without acknowledging their documented limitations in capturing semantics and coherence.
  • domain assumption Expert reviewers and survey respondents can provide accurate, bias-free judgments of coherence, readability, and technical accuracy.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.2 rely on subjective ratings without discussing inter-rater reliability, sample size, or potential biases; the framework treats expert judgment as ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating Generative AI-Enhanced Content: A Conceptual Framework Using Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P54O5HBV

@misc{pith2026241117943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating Generative AI-Enhanced Content: A Conceptual Framework Using Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P54O5HBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17943}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI (GenAI) has revolutionized content generation, offering transformative capabilities for improving language coherence, readability, and overall quality. This manuscript explores the application of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research approaches to evaluate the performance of GenAI models in enhancing scientific writing. Using a hypothetical use case involving a collaborative medical imaging manuscript, we demonstrate how each method provides unique insights into the impact of GenAI. Qualitative methods gather in-depth feedback from expert reviewers, analyzing their responses using thematic analysis tools to capture nuanced improvements and identify limitations. Quantitative approaches employ automated metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, and readability scores, as well as user surveys, to objectively measure improvements in coherence, fluency, and structure. Mixed-methods research integrates these strengths, combining statistical evaluations with detailed qualitative insights to provide a comprehensive assessment. These research methods enable quantifying improvement levels in GenAI-generated content, addressing critical aspects of linguistic quality and technical accuracy. They also offer a robust framework for benchmarking GenAI tools against traditional editing processes, ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of these technologies. By leveraging these methodologies, researchers can evaluate the performance boost driven by GenAI, refine its applications, and guide its responsible adoption in high-stakes domains like healthcare and scientific research. This work underscores the importance of rigorous evaluation frameworks for advancing trust and innovation in GenAI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The genai is out of the bottle: generative artificial intelligence from a business model innovation perspective

    Dominik K Kanbach, Louisa Heiduk, Georg Blueher, Maximilian Schreiter, and Alexander Lahmann. The genai is out of the bottle: generative artificial intelligence from a business model innovation perspective. Review of Managerial Science, 18 0 (4): 0 1189--1220, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Opportunities in research for generative artificial intelligence (genai), challenges and future direction: A study

    JD Chavan, CR Mankar, and VM Patil. Opportunities in research for generative artificial intelligence (genai), challenges and future direction: A study. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 11 0 (02): 0 446--451, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Explainable generative ai (genxai): A survey, conceptualization, and research agenda

    Johannes Schneider. Explainable generative ai (genxai): A survey, conceptualization, and research agenda. Artificial Intelligence Review, 57 0 (11): 0 289, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Leveraging genai for clinical data analysis: Applications and challenges in real-time patient monitoring

    Pramod Kumar Voola, Aravind Ayyagiri, Aravindsundeep Musunuri, Anshika Aggarwal, and Shalu Jain. Leveraging genai for clinical data analysis: Applications and challenges in real-time patient monitoring. Modern Dynamics: Mathematical Progressions, 1 0 (2): 0 204--223, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Utilizing nlp sentiment analysis approach to categorize amazon reviews against an extended testing set

    Arman Sarraf. Utilizing nlp sentiment analysis approach to categorize amazon reviews against an extended testing set. International Journal of Computer (IJC), 50 0 (1): 0 107--116, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Effects of fennel (foeniculum vulgare) seed powder addition during early lactation on performance, milk fatty acid profile, and rumen fermentation parameters of holstein cows

    Erfaneh Moosavi-Zadeh, Amin Rahimi, Hassan Rafiee, Hamidreza Saberipour, and Ramin Bahadoran. Effects of fennel (foeniculum vulgare) seed powder addition during early lactation on performance, milk fatty acid profile, and rumen fermentation parameters of holstein cows. Frontiers in Animal Science, 4: 0 1097071, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Deposition of a low-activity type cobalt-modified aluminide coating by slurry aluminizing of a pre-co-electroplated ni-based superalloy (in738lc)

    Shayan Sarraf, Saeed Rastegari, and Mansour Soltanieh. Deposition of a low-activity type cobalt-modified aluminide coating by slurry aluminizing of a pre-co-electroplated ni-based superalloy (in738lc). Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 30: 0 1183--1193, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    All artificial, less intelligence: Genai through the lens of formal verification

    Deepak Narayan Gadde, Aman Kumar, Thomas Nalapat, Evgenii Rezunov, and Fabio Cappellini. All artificial, less intelligence: Genai through the lens of formal verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16750, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Chatgpt application in summarizing an evolution of deep learning techniques in imaging: A qualitative study

    Arman Sarraf and Amirabbas Abbaspour. Chatgpt application in summarizing an evolution of deep learning techniques in imaging: A qualitative study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03723, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    24-hour postnatal total serum protein concentration affects the health and growth performance of female holstein dairy calves

    Mitra Aghakhani, Amir Davar Foroozandeh Shahraki, Seyed Nouroldin Tabatabaei, Majid Toghyani, Erfaneh Moosavi-Zadeh, and Hassan Rafiee. 24-hour postnatal total serum protein concentration affects the health and growth performance of female holstein dairy calves. Veterinary Med...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Ovitad: Optimized vision transformer to predict various stages of alzheimer’s disease using resting-state fmri and structural mri data

    Saman Sarraf, Arman Sarraf, Danielle D DeSouza, John AE Anderson, Milton Kabia, and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Ovitad: Optimized vision transformer to predict various stages of alzheimer’s disease using resting-state fmri and structural mri data. Brain Scienc...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Reactive air aluminizing of a nickel-based superalloy (in738lc): Coating formation mechanism

    Shayan Hossein Sarraf, Mansour Soltanieh, and Saeed Rastegari. Reactive air aluminizing of a nickel-based superalloy (in738lc): Coating formation mechanism. Surface and Coatings Technology, 456: 0 129229, 2023 b

    2023

  5. [13]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Recent applications of deep learning algorithms in medical image analysis

    Arman Sarraf, Ali Esmaeilnia Jalali, and Javad Ghaffari. Recent applications of deep learning algorithms in medical image analysis. Am. Sci. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Sci, 72 0 (1): 0 58--66, 2020 a

    2020

  7. [15]

    Deposition of mono dispersed co--ceo2 nanocomposite coatings by a sol-enhanced pulsed reverse electroplating: process parameters screening

    Shayan Hossein Sarraf, Saeed Rastegari, and Mansour Soltanieh. Deposition of mono dispersed co--ceo2 nanocomposite coatings by a sol-enhanced pulsed reverse electroplating: process parameters screening. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 23: 0 3772--3789, 2023 c

    2023

  8. [16]

    A comprehensive review of deep learning architectures for computer vision applications

    Arman Sarraf, Mohammad Azhdari, Saman Sarraf, et al. A comprehensive review of deep learning architectures for computer vision applications. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 77 0 (1): 0 1--29, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Optimal topology of vision transformer for real-time video action recognition in an end-to-end cloud solution

    Saman Sarraf and Milton Kabia. Optimal topology of vision transformer for real-time video action recognition in an end-to-end cloud solution. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 5 0 (4): 0 1320--1339, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Exploring the use of generative artificial intelligence in systematic searching: A comparative case study of a human librarian, chatgpt-4 and chatgpt-4 turbo

    Xiayu Summer Chen and Yali Feng. Exploring the use of generative artificial intelligence in systematic searching: A comparative case study of a human librarian, chatgpt-4 and chatgpt-4 turbo. IFLA Journal, page 03400352241263532, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Formulating a strategic plan based on statistical analyses and applications for financial companies through a real-world use case

    Saman Sarraf. Formulating a strategic plan based on statistical analyses and applications for financial companies through a real-world use case. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04778, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Using chatgpt to conduct a literature review

    Michael Haman and Milan S koln \' k. Using chatgpt to conduct a literature review. Accountability in research, 31 0 (8): 0 1244--1246, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Analysis and detection of ddos attacks using machine learning techniques

    Saman Sarraf et al. Analysis and detection of ddos attacks using machine learning techniques. Am. Sci. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Sci, 66 0 (1): 0 95--104, 2020 b

    2020

  14. [22]

    Google deepmind’s gemini ai versus chatgpt: A comparative analysis in ophthalmology

    Mouayad Masalkhi, Joshua Ong, Ethan Waisberg, and Andrew G Lee. Google deepmind’s gemini ai versus chatgpt: A comparative analysis in ophthalmology. Eye, pages 1--6, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Repairing the cracks network of hard chromium electroplated layers using plasma nitriding technique

    Shayan Hossein Sarraf, Mansour Soltanieh, and Hossein Aghajani. Repairing the cracks network of hard chromium electroplated layers using plasma nitriding technique. Vacuum, 127: 0 1--9, 2016 a

    2016

  16. [24]

    Current stage of autonomous driving through a quick survey for novice

    Saman Sarraf. Current stage of autonomous driving through a quick survey for novice. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 73 0 (1): 0 1--7, 2020 a

    2020

  17. [25]

    Chatie: Zero-shot information extraction via chatting with chatgpt

    Xiang Wei, Xingyu Cui, Ning Cheng, Xiaobin Wang, Xin Zhang, Shen Huang, Pengjun Xie, Jinan Xu, Yufeng Chen, Meishan Zhang, et al. Chatie: Zero-shot information extraction via chatting with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10205, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Binary image classification through an optimal topology for convolutional neural networks

    Arman Sarraf. Binary image classification through an optimal topology for convolutional neural networks. Am. Sci. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Sci, 68 0 (1): 0 181--192, 2020 b

    2020

  19. [27]

    Machine learning applications to recognize autism and alzheimer’s disease

    Saman Sarraf. Machine learning applications to recognize autism and alzheimer’s disease. Neurological Disorders and Imaging Physics, Volume 3: Application to autism spectrum disorders and Alzheimer’s, pages 1--1, 2019 a

    2019

  20. [28]

    Mcadnnet: Recognizing stages of cognitive impairment through efficient convolutional fmri and mri neural network topology models

    Saman Sarraf, Danielle D Desouza, John AE Anderson, and Cristina Saverino. Mcadnnet: Recognizing stages of cognitive impairment through efficient convolutional fmri and mri neural network topology models. IEEE Access, 7: 0 155584--155600, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    5g emerging technology and affected industries: Quick survey

    Saman Sarraf. 5g emerging technology and affected industries: Quick survey. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 55 0 (1): 0 75--82, 2019 b

    2019

  22. [30]

    French word recognition through a quick survey on recurrent neural networks using long-short term memory rnn-lstm

    Saman Sarraf. French word recognition through a quick survey on recurrent neural networks using long-short term memory rnn-lstm. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03683, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Eeg-based movement imagery classification using machine learning techniques and welch’s power spectral density estimation

    Saman Sarraf. Eeg-based movement imagery classification using machine learning techniques and welch’s power spectral density estimation. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), 33 0 (1): 0 124--145, 2017 a

    2017

  24. [32]

    Binary image segmentation using classification methods: Support vector machines, artificial neural networks and k th nearest neighbours

    Saman Sarraf. Binary image segmentation using classification methods: Support vector machines, artificial neural networks and k th nearest neighbours. International Journal of Computer (IJC), 24 0 (1): 0 56--79, 2017 b

    2017

  25. [33]

    Big data application in functional magnetic resonance imaging using apache spark

    Saman Sarraf and Mehdi Ostadhashem. Big data application in functional magnetic resonance imaging using apache spark. In 2016 Future technologies conference (FTC), pages 281--284. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Deep learning-based pipeline to recognize alzheimer's disease using fmri data

    Saman Sarraf and Ghassem Tofighi. Deep learning-based pipeline to recognize alzheimer's disease using fmri data. In 2016 future technologies conference (FTC), pages 816--820. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Deepad: Alzheimer’s disease classification via deep convolutional neural networks using mri and fmri

    Saman Sarraf, Danielle D DeSouza, John Anderson, Ghassem Tofighi, and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiativ. Deepad: Alzheimer’s disease classification via deep convolutional neural networks using mri and fmri. BioRxiv, page 070441, 2016 b

    2016

  28. [36]

    Deep learning-based framework for autism functional mri image classification

    Xin Yang, Saman Sarraf, and Ning Zhang. Deep learning-based framework for autism functional mri image classification. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 72 0 (1): 0 47--52, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Mathematical modeling for predicting betamethasone profile and burst release from in situ forming systems based on plga

    Saman Sarraf, Ehsan Marzbanrad, and Hamid Mobedi. Mathematical modeling for predicting betamethasone profile and burst release from in situ forming systems based on plga. In 2014 IEEE 27th Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), pages 1--6. IEEE, 2014 a

    2014

  30. [38]

    Brain network extraction from probabilistic ica using functional magnetic resonance images and advanced template matching techniques

    Saman Sarraf, Cristina Saverino, Halleh Ghaderi, and John Anderson. Brain network extraction from probabilistic ica using functional magnetic resonance images and advanced template matching techniques. In 2014 IEEE 27th Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineerin...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.