Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : Malignant brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in children under 20. There are nearly 700,000 people in the U.S. living with a brain tumor and 17,000 people are likely to loose their lives due to primary malignant and central nervous system brain tumor every year. \n To identify whether a patient is diagnosed with brain tumor in a non-invasive way, an MRI scan of the brain is acquired followed by a manual examination of the scan by an expert who looks for lesions (i.e. cluster of cells which deviate from healthy tissue). For treatment purposes, the tumor and its sub-regions are outlined in a procedure known as brain tumor segmentation . Although brain tumor segmentation is primarily done manually, it is very time consuming and the segmentation is subject to variations both between observers and within the same observer. To address these issues, a number of automatic and semi-automatic methods have been proposed over the years to help physicians in the decision making process. \n \n Methods based on machine learning have been subjects of great interest in brain tumor segmentation. With the advent of deep learning methods and their success in many computer vision applications such as image classification, these methods have also started to gain popularity in medical image analysis. \n \n In this thesis, we explore different machine learning and deep learning methods applied to brain tumor segmentation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".