Automatic ROI Selection in Structural Brain MRI Using SOM 3D Projection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a method for selecting Regions of Interest (ROI) in brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for diagnostic purposes, using statistical learning and vector quantization techniques. The proposed method models the distribution of GM and WM tissues grouping the voxels belonging to each tissue in ROIs associated to a specific neurological disorder. Tissue distribution of normal and abnormal images is modelled by a Self-Organizing map (SOM), generating a set of representative prototypes, and the receptive field (RF) of each SOM prototype defines a ROI. Moreover, the proposed method computes the relative importance of each ROI by means of its discriminative power. The devised method has been assessed using 818 images from the Alzheimer's disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) which were previously segmented through Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM). The proposed algorithm was used over these images to parcel ROIs associated to the Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Additionally, this method can be used to extract a reduced set of discriminative features for classification, since it compresses discriminative information contained in the brain. Voxels marked by ROIs which were computed using the proposed method, yield classification results up to 90% of accuracy for controls (CN) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients, and 84% of accuracy for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and AD patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".