MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151800036 · doi:10.1186/1471-2342-8-9

Automatic volumetry on MR brain images can support diagnostic decision making

2008· article· en· W2151800036 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

VenueBMC Medical Imaging · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDunhill Medical Trust
KeywordsDementiaComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroimagingMedicineDiseasePathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic decisions in clinical imaging currently rely almost exclusively on visual image interpretation. This can lead to uncertainty, for example in dementia disease, where some of the changes resemble those of normal ageing. We hypothesized that extracting volumetric data from patients' MR brain images, relating them to reference data and presenting the results as a colour overlay on the grey scale data would aid diagnostic readers in classifying dementia disease versus normal ageing. METHODS: A proof-of-concept forced-choice reader study was designed using MR brain images from 36 subjects. Images were segmented into 43 regions using an automatic atlas registration-based label propagation procedure. Seven subjects had clinically probable AD, the remaining 29 of a similar age range were used as controls. Seven of the control subject data sets were selected at random to be presented along with the seven AD datasets to two readers, who were blinded to all clinical and demographic information except age and gender. Readers were asked to review the grey scale MR images and to record their choice of diagnosis (AD or non-AD) along with their confidence in this decision. Afterwards, readers were given the option to switch on a false-colour overlay representing the relative size of the segmented structures. Colorization was based on the size rank of the test subject when compared with a reference group consisting of the 22 control subjects who were not used as review subjects. The readers were then asked to record whether and how the additional information had an impact on their diagnostic confidence. RESULTS: The size rank colour overlays were useful in 18 of 28 diagnoses, as determined by their impact on readers' diagnostic confidence. A not useful result was found in 6 of 28 cases. The impact of the additional information on diagnostic confidence was significant (p < 0.02). CONCLUSION: Volumetric anatomical information extracted from brain images using automatic segmentation and presented as colour overlays can support diagnostic decision making.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.019
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)0.0080.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.333 · 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