MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1887649450 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n8p354

A New Method for Detecting Cerebral Tissues Abnormality in Magnetic Resonance Images

2015· article· en· W1887649450 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohammed Sabbih Hamoud Al-Tamimi, Ghazali Sulong

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)AbnormalitySupport vector machineComputer scienceHistogramSegmentationMagnetic resonance imagingPixelFeature vectorComputer visionImage (mathematics)RadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new method for detecting the abnormality in cerebral tissues present within Magnetic Resonance Images (MRI). Present classifier is comprised of cerebral tissue extraction, image division into angular and distance span vectors, acquirement of four features for each portion and classification to ascertain the abnormality location. The threshold value and region of interest are discerned using operator input and Otsu algorithm. Novel brain slices image division is introduced via angular and distance span vectors of sizes 24˚ with 15 pixels. Rotation invariance of the angular span vector is determined. An automatic image categorization into normal and abnormal brain tissues is performed using Support Vector Machine (SVM). Standard Deviation, Mean, Energy and Entropy are extorted using the histogram approach for each merger space. These features are found to be higher in occurrence in the tumor region than the non-tumor one. MRI scans of the five brains with 60 slices from each are utilized for testing the proposed method’s authenticity. These brain images (230 slices as normal and 70 abnormal) are accessed from the Internet Brain Segmentation Repository (IBSR) dataset. 60% images for training and 40% for testing phase are used. Average classification accuracy as much as 98.02% (training) and 98.19% (testing) are achieved.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207