Automatic volumetry on MR brain images can support diagnostic decision making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".