MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328428430 · doi:10.1117/12.2216285

3D texture-based classification applied on brain white matter lesions on MR images

2016· article· en· W2328428430 on OpenAlexaff
Mariana Leite, David G. Gobbi, Marina Salluzi, Richard Frayne, Roberto Lotufo, Letícia Rittner

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistogramArtificial intelligenceTexture (cosmology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceWhite matterCo-occurrence matrixGray levelSupport vector machineImage textureClassifier (UML)Computer visionContextual image classificationHistogram of oriented gradientsImage processingPixelMagnetic resonance imagingImage (mathematics)MedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lesions in the brain white matter are among the most frequently observed incidental findings on MR images. This paper presents a 3D texture-based classification to distinguish normal appearing white matter from white matter containing lesions, and compares it with the 2D approach. Texture analysis were based on 55 texture attributes extracted from gray-level histogram, gray-level co-occurrence matrix, run-length matrix and gradient. The results show that the 3D approach achieves an accuracy rate of 99.28%, against 97.41% of the 2D approach by using a support vector machine classifier. Furthermore, the most discriminating texture attributes on both 2D and 3D cases were obtained from the image histogram and co-occurrence matrix.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207