MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891048275 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00629

Automatic Segmentation of Corpus Callosum in Midsagittal Based on Bayesian Inference Consisting of Sparse Representation Error and Multi-Atlas Voting

2018· article· en· W2891048275 on OpenAlexaff
Gilsoon Park, Kichang Kwak, Sang Won Seo, Jongmin Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningNational Research Foundation
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceSegmentationSparse approximationBayesian inferenceInferenceBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we introduce a novel automatic method for Corpus Callosum (CC) in midsagittal plane segmentation. The robust segmentation of CC in midsagittal plane is key role for quantitative study of structural features of CC associated with various neurological disorder such as epilepsy, autism, Alzheimer's disease, and so on. Our approach is based on Bayesian inference using sparse representation and multi-atlas voting which both methods are used in various medical imaging, and show outstanding performance. Prior information in the proposed Bayesian inference is obtained from probability map generated from multi-atlas voting. The probability map contains the information of shape and location of CC of target image. Likelihood in the proposed Bayesian inference is obtained from gamma distribution function, generated from reconstruction errors (or sparse representation error), which are calculated in sparse representation of target patch using foreground dictionary and background dictionary each. Unlike the usual sparse representation method, we added gradient magnitude and gradient direction information to the patches of dictionaries and target, which had better segmentation performance than when not added. We compared three main segmentation results as follow: (1) the joint label fusion (JLF) method which is state-of-art method in multi-atlas voting based segmentation for evaluation of our method; (2) prior information estimated from multi-atlas voting only; (3) likelihood estimated from comparison of the reconstruction errors from sparse representation error only; (4) the proposed Bayesian inference. The methods were evaluated using two data sets of T1-weighted images, which one data set consists of 100 normal young subjects and the other data set consist of 25 normal old subjects and 22 old subjects with heavy drinker. In both data sets, the proposed Bayesian inference method has significantly the best segmentation performance than using each method separately.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207