MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995877745 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2012.6235613

Automatic brain tumor detection in Magnetic Resonance Images

2012· article· en· W1995877745 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoAUG Signals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingAdaBoostComputer scienceDiscriminative modelBrain tumorModality (human–computer interaction)Pattern recognition (psychology)Ground truthComputer visionClassifier (UML)RadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic detection of brain tumor is a difficult task due to variations in type, size, location and shape of tumors. In this paper, a multi-modality framework for automatic tumor detection is presented, fusing different Magnetic Resonance Imaging modalities including T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and T1 with gadolinium contrast agent. The intensity, shape deformation, symmetry, and texture features were extracted from each image. The AdaBoost classifier was used to select the most discriminative features and to segment the tumor region. Multi-modal MR images with simulated tumor have been used as the ground truth for training and validation of the detection method. Preliminary results on simulated and patient MRI show 100% successful tumor detection with average accuracy of 90.11%.

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.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207