MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166636660 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2006.318

Bayesian MS Lesion Classification Modeling Regional and Local Spatial Information

2006· article· en· W2166636660 on OpenAlexaff
Rola Harmouche, D. Louis Collins, Douglas L. Arnold, Simon Francis, Tal Arbel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer sciencePosterior probabilityVoxelBayesian probabilityEntropy (arrow of time)Principle of maximum entropyMultivariate statisticsSpatial analysisProbabilistic logicMathematicsMachine learningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fully automatic Bayesian framework for multiple sclerosis (MS) lesion classification is presented, using posterior probability distributions and entropy values to classify normal and lesion tissue. Spatial variability in intensities of multimodal MR images over the brain is explicitly modeled by building region-specific multivariate likelihood distributions. Local smoothness is ensured by incorporating neighboring voxel tissue information using Markov Random fields. A probabilistic measure of confidence for the classification is then presented, which can also be used to assess disease burden. The method was tested on 10 patients with MS by comparing automatically classified lesions, with and without regional information, to manual classifications by five expert raters using volume count and overlap. Results improve with the incorporation of spatial information, and are comparable to manual classifications. This method also enables a more accurate classification in the posterior fossa, where no other method reports success.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations37
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207