MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Segmentation of GBM in MRI images using an efficient speed function based on level set method

2017· article· en· W2789826769 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Mojtabavi, Parastoo Farnia, Alireza Ahmadian, M. Alimohamadi, Ahmad Pour‐Rashidi, Hamidreza Saligheh Rad, Javad Alirezaie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceImage segmentationSørensen–Dice coefficientArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Level set (data structures)Filter (signal processing)Level set methodDiceSet (abstract data type)Boundary (topology)Function (biology)Scale-space segmentationRegion of interestGold standard (test)Computer visionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate segmentation and characterization of abnormalities in brain tumor are challenging task, especially in the case of GBM tumors, where the ambiguities presented in the boundaries of these tumors necessitates using efficient segmentation method. Level set methods have proven to be a flexible and powerful tool for image segmentation because of being shape-driven method with a properly defined speed function to grow or shrink the boundaries to segment complex objects of interest, precisely. In this study a combined level set algorithm consists of both region and boundary terms for GBM segmentation is proposed. The modified speed function incorporates threshold based level set and the Laplacian filter to highlight the fine details for performing an accurate extraction of the tumor region using multiple seed points selected by the user. An evaluation was performed on a dataset containing 6 patients with GBM by using three measures Dice, false positive error (FPE) and false negative error (FNE). Manual segmentation of GBM is considered as gold standard. Compared to traditional method, the mean of FPE and FNE are improved by 53.5% and 53.1%, respectively. The mean of Dice coefficients between our results and gold standard measurement reached to 0.88. As the results proved, the proposed combined method improves the accuracy of GBM segmentation by 16% compared to conventional level set method with threshold based speed function. Our method is also robust to change of parameters.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207