MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992339340 · doi:10.1117/12.845058

Detection of small human cerebral cortical lesions with MRI under different levels of Gaussian smoothing: applications in epilepsy

2010· article· en· W1992339340 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Cantor‐Rivera, Maged Goubran, Alan Kraguljac, Robert Bartha, Terry M. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoxelImaging phantomComputer scienceGaussian filterSmoothingArtificial intelligenceGaussianGaussian blurBilateral filterFilter (signal processing)Pattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationComputer visionImage processingPhysicsNuclear medicineMedicinePixel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this study was to assess the effect of smoothing filter selection in Voxel-Based Morphometry studies on structural T1-weighted magnetic resonance images. Gaussian filters of 4 mm, 8 mm or 10 mm Full Width at High Maximum are commonly used, based on the assumption that the filter size should be at least twice the voxel size to obtain robust statistical results. The hypothesis of the presented work was that the selection of the smoothing filter influenced the detectability of small lesions in the brain. Mesial Temporal Sclerosis associated to Epilepsy was used as the case to demonstrate this effect. Twenty T1-weighted MRIs from the BrainWeb database were selected. A small phantom lesion was placed in the amygdala, hippocampus, or parahippocampal gyrus of ten of the images. Subsequently the images were registered to the ICBM/MNI space. After grey matter segmentation, a T-test was carried out to compare each image containing a phantom lesion with the rest of the images in the set. For each lesion the T-test was repeated with different Gaussian filter sizes. Voxel-Based Morphometry detected some of the phantom lesions. Of the three parameters considered: location,size, and intensity; it was shown that location is the dominant factor for the detection of the lesions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207