MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056721442 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2013.2258403

Temporally Consistent Probabilistic Detection of New Multiple Sclerosis Lesions in Brain MRI

2013· article· en· W2056721442 on OpenAlexaff
Colm Elliott, Douglas L. Arnold, D. Louis Collins, Tal Arbel

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalNeuroRx Research (Canada)McGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceVoxelComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)SegmentationMagnetic resonance imagingGround truthRandom forestMultiple sclerosisProbabilistic logicImage segmentationMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of new Multiple Sclerosis (MS) lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is important as a marker of disease activity and as a potential surrogate for relapses. We propose an approach where sequential scans are jointly segmented, to provide a temporally consistent tissue segmentation while remaining sensitive to newly appearing lesions. The method uses a two-stage classification process: 1) a Bayesian classifier provides a probabilistic brain tissue classification at each voxel of reference and follow-up scans, and 2) a random-forest based lesion-level classification provides a final identification of new lesions. Generative models are learned based on 364 scans from 95 subjects from a multi-center clinical trial. The method is evaluated on sequential brain MRI of 160 subjects from a separate multi-center clinical trial, and is compared to 1) semi-automatically generated ground truth segmentations and 2) fully manual identification of new lesions generated independently by nine expert raters on a subset of 60 subjects. For new lesions greater than 0.15 cc in size, the classifier has near perfect performance (99% sensitivity, 2% false detection rate), as compared to ground truth. The proposed method was also shown to exceed the performance of any one of the nine expert manual identifications.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations66
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207