MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762683804 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-24304-3

Spinal cord gray matter segmentation using deep dilated convolutions

2018· article· en· W2762683804 on OpenAlexafffund
Christian S. Perone, Evan Calabrese, Julien Cohen‐Adad

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesCompute CanadaNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNvidia
KeywordsSpinal cordSegmentationAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisComputer scienceDeep learningEx vivoArtificial intelligenceMultiple sclerosisNeuroscienceMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)PathologyIn vivoBiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gray matter (GM) tissue changes have been associated with a wide range of neurological disorders and were recently found relevant as a biomarker for disability in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The ability to automatically segment the GM is, therefore, an important task for modern studies of the spinal cord. In this work, we devise a modern, simple and end-to-end fully-automated human spinal cord gray matter segmentation method using Deep Learning, that works both on in vivo and ex vivo MRI acquisitions. We evaluate our method against six independently developed methods on a GM segmentation challenge. We report state-of-the-art results in 8 out of 10 evaluation metrics as well as major network parameter reduction when compared to the traditional medical imaging architectures such as U-Nets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations134
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207