MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1584617426 · doi:10.1118/1.4924336

SU‐E‐J‐250: A Machine Learning Approach for Creating Texture‐Preserved MRI Tumor Models From Clinical Sequences

2015· article· en· W1584617426 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Vallières, André Diamant Boustead, S. Laberge, Ives R. Levesque

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceEntropy (arrow of time)Computer scienceTexture (cosmology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Gray levelRelaxation (psychology)MathematicsImage (mathematics)PhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We hypothesize that MRI texture‐based tumor outcome prediction models could be optimized via numerical simulations of image acquisitions. These simulations require knowledge of T1 and T2 relaxation times as inputs. The goal of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of using machine learning techniques to infer T1 and T2 tumor maps with accurate texture preservation for simulation inputs from clinical sequences. Methods: Clinical T1‐weighted (T1w) and T2‐weighted fat‐saturated (T2FS) scans, and measured T1 and T2 maps from eight patients with soft‐tissue sarcomas were used in this study. Measured T1 and T2 maps were computed using pulse sequences with variable flip angles and echo times, respectively. General regression neural networks (GRNNs) were trained on these data to infer T1 and T2 relaxation times from T1w and T2FS images. Four texture features were extracted to evaluate texture preservation: GLCM/Entropy, GLRLM/Gray‐Level Variance (GLV), GLSZM/Zone Size Variance (ZSV) and NGTDM/Complexity. The GRNN ability to estimate T1 and T2 relaxation times was assessed using leave‐one‐out cross‐validation. Results: The average T1 and T2 relaxation times within the tumor region of all patients were (1515 ± 542) ms and (226 ± 151) ms in the measured cases, and (1546 ± 546) ms and (249 ± 145) ms in the estimated cases, respectively. The average root‐mean‐square errors between measured and estimated relaxation times were 573 ms for T1 and 160 ms for T2. The average absolute percentage differences between measured and estimated GLCM/Entropy, GLRLM/GLV, GLSZM/ZSV and NGTDM/Complexity features were 5.1%, 0.02%, 0.0% and 16.2% for T1 maps, and 7.7%, 0.04%, 0.0% and 10.9% for T2 maps, respectively. Conclusion: From a texture preservation perspective, this work demonstrates the feasibility to create MRI numerical models using GRNNs from T1w and T2FS clinical scans. Further work is required to obtain higher accuracy for T1 and T2 absolute relaxation times. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada under the scholarship CGSD3‐426742‐2012, as well as it was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under grant MOP‐136774.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Physics→Same topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging→French-language works237,207→