MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790979283 · doi:10.4018/ijssci.2018040103

Nuclei Segmentation for Quantification of Brain Tumors in Digital Pathology Images

2018· article· en· W2790979283 on OpenAlexaff
Peifang Guo, Alan C. Evans, Prabir Bhattacharya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational Intelligence · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceHSL and HSVPattern recognition (psychology)HueDigital pathologyImage segmentationColor spaceSet (abstract data type)Computer visionImage (mathematics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, based on image transformation of HSV (Hue, Saturation, Value), the authors propose a method for cancer nuclei segmentation when such conflicts of cancer nuclei involve ‘omics' indicative of brain tumors pathologically. To constrain the problem space in the region of color information, i.e. cancer nuclei, they convert the images into the V component of HSV first, and then apply the threshold level-set segmentation and the sparsity technique (VTLS-ST) in segmentation. The combined technique of the proposed VTLS-ST is implemented using the real-time CBTC dataset in the validation stage. The proposed method exhibits an improved capability of searching recursively for the optimal threshold level-set in the working subsets via the sparsity representation in segmentation. The experimental results show the reliability and efficiency of the proposed approach in real-time applications with an average rate of 0.932 in terms of similarity index for segmentation of cancer nuclei in brain tumor detection.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational IntelligenceSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207