MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540871663 · doi:10.1109/acssc.2007.4487200

Locating Brain Tumors from MR Imagery Using Symmetry

2007· article· en· W2540871663 on OpenAlex
Nilanjan Ray, Baidya Nath Saha, Matthew Brown

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

VenueConference record/Conference record - Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, & Computers · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAbnormalitySearch engine indexingSegmentationArtificial intelligenceBounding overwatchMagnetic resonance imagingImage segmentationComputer visionMinimum bounding boxBrain tumorSymmetry (geometry)ExploitImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tumor/abnormality segmentation from magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) can play a significant role in cancer research and clinical practice. Although accurate tumor segmentation by radiologists is ideal, it is extremely tedious. Experience shows that for MRI database indexing purposes approximate segmentations can be adequate. In this paper, we propose a straightforward, real-time technique to find a bounding box around the brain abnormality in an MR image. Our algorithm exploits left-to-right symmetry of the brain structure. The proposed detection algorithm can play a useful role in indexing and storage of bulk MRI data, as well as provide an initial step or seed to assist algorithms designed to find accurate tumor boundaries.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.246 · 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