MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131403437 · doi:10.1109/isbi.2009.5193038

Prostate cancer segmentation with multispectral MRI using cost-sensitive Conditional Random Fields

2009· article· en· W2131403437 on OpenAlexaff
Yusuf Artan, Deanna L. Langer, M. Haider, Theodorus van der Kwast, A. Evans, Miles N. Wernick, İmam Şamil Yetik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultispectral imageProstate cancerConditional random fieldMagnetic resonance imagingComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceCancerProstateUltrasoundImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer death for men in the United States. There is currently no widely adopted accurate noninvasive method for localizing prostate cancer using imaging. If such as technique were available it could be used to guide biopsy, radiotheraphy and surgery. However, current imaging techniques are limited due to inability to detect cancers, intensity changes related to non-malignant pathologies and interobserver variability. Recently, multispectral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a promising noninvasive method for the localization of prostate cancer alternative to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). This paper develops automated methods for prostate cancer localization with conditional random fields using multispectral MRI. We propose to combine cost-sensitive Support Vector Machines with Conditional Random Fields and show that this method results in higher accuracy of localization compared to other common methods. Our results also show that multispectral modality images helps to increase the accuracy of prostate cancer localization. Using multispectral MR images, we demonstrate the effectiveness of each algorithm by testing them on real data sets and compare them to recently proposed SVMstruct and Conditional Random Fields.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical ResearchFrench-language works237,207