MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011483098 · doi:10.1118/1.3357289

Robust texture features for response monitoring of glioblastoma multiforme on T1-weighted and T2-FLAIR MR images: A preliminary investigation in terms of identification and segmentation

2010· article· en· W2011483098 on OpenAlexafffund
Dawit Assefa, H. Keller, Cynthia Ménard, Normand Laperrière, Ricardo J. Ferrari, Ivan Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteTerry Fox FoundationCancer Research Institute
KeywordsVoxelFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Image textureTexture (cosmology)Contrast (vision)Computer scienceSegmentationImage resolutionReceiver operating characteristicMagnetic resonance imagingComputer visionImage segmentationImage (mathematics)MedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Image texture has recently attracted much attention in providing quantitative features that are unique to various different tissue types, in particular, in MR images of the brain. Such image features may be useful for tumor response quantification. As a first step, one needs to establish if these features are sensitive to different tissues of clinical relevance. Here, a novel method of texture analysis based on the Hartley transform has been investigated and applied to MR images of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). METHODS: Contrast-enhanced T1-weighted gradient-echo and T2-FLAIR spin-echo MR images of 27 GBM patients acquired prior to radiation therapy were available for analysis. Before computing texture features on these images, a novel image transformation was employed in the form of a power map computed from the localized Hartley transform of the image. Haralick statistical texture features were then computed based on the power map. This method was compared to the standard approach of obtaining texture features directly from the image. Twelve different features were computed on different resolution levels. On a regional resolution level, image texture features were identified that are able to correctly classify entire regions within T1-weighted and T2-FLAIR brain MR images of GBM patients into abnormal (containing contrast-enhancing GBM tumor) and brain tissue. Various metrics [area under the ROC curve (AUC), maximum accuracy, and Canberra distance] have been computed to quantify the usefulness of these features. On a local resolution level, it was investigated which of these features are able to provide a voxel-by-voxel enhancement that could be used for assisting the segmentation of the gross tumor volume on T1 images. The "gold standard" for this analysis was a gross tumor volume corresponding to the contrast-enhancing lesion visualized on T1-weighted images as segmented by a radiation oncologist. RESULTS: The Sum-mean and Variance features demonstrated the best performance overall. For the T1-weighted images, the identification performance of Sum-mean and Variance features computed from the power map was higher (AUC = 0.9959 and AUC = 0.9918, respectively) and with higher Canberra distances as compared to features computed directly from the images (AUC = 0.8930 and AUC = 0.9163, respectively). These results in T2-FLAIR images were even superior. The features computed from the power map showed an unequivocal identification (AUC = 1) with higher Canberra distances, whereas the performance of the features from the original images was slightly lower (AUC = 0.9739 and AUC = 0.9904, respectively). The same features computed on the power map of the T1-weighted images also provided superior enhancement in individual tumor voxels as compared to the features computed on the original images. CONCLUSIONS: The Sum-mean and Variance features are both useful for identifying and segmenting GBM tumors on localized Hartley transformed MR images.

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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207