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 OpenAlexaff
Sahar Ghanavati, Junning Li, Ting Liu, Paul Babyn, Wendy Doda, George A. Lampropoulos

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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

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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207