MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972617227 · doi:10.1002/mrm.10436

Automatic segmentation of the brain and intracranial cerebrospinal fluid in <i>T</i><sub>1</sub>‐weighted volume MRI scans of the head, and its application to serial cerebral and intracranial volumetry

2003· article· en· W1972617227 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louis Lemieux, Alexander Hammers, Toby Mackinnon, Rebecca S. N. Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Glasgow
KeywordsCerebrospinal fluidNuclear medicineSegmentationWhite matterBrain sizePartial volumeMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingContext (archaeology)EpilepsyReproducibilityRadiologyChemistryPathologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new fully automatic algorithm for the segmentation of the brain and total intracranial cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from T(1)-weighted volume MRI scans of the head, called Exbrain v.2, is described. The algorithm was developed in the context of serial intracranial volumetry. A brain mask obtained using a previous version of the algorithm forms the basis of the CSF segmentation. Improved brain segmentation is then obtained by iterative tracking of the brain-CSF interface. Gray matter (GM), white matter (WM), and intracranial CSF volumes and probability maps are calculated based on a model of intensity probability distribution (IPD) that includes two partial volume classes: GM-CSF and GM-WM. Accuracy was assessed using the Montreal Neurological Institute's (MNI) digital phantom scan. Reproducibility was assessed using scan pairs from 24 controls and 10 patients with epilepsy. Segmentation overlap with the gold standard was 98% for the brain and 95%, 96%, and 97% for the GM, WM, and total intracranial contents, respectively; CSF overlap was 86%. In the controls, the Bland and Altman coefficient of reliability (CR) was 35.2 cm(3) for the total brain volume (TBV) and 29.0 cm(3) for the intracranial volume (ICV). Scan-matching reduced CR to 25.2 cm(3) and 17.1 cm(3) for the TBV and ICV, respectively. For the patients, similar CR values were obtained for the ICV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations78
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207