TOWARDS AN AUTOMATIC DIAGNOSIS SYSTEM FOR LUMBAR DISC HERNIATION: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LOCAL SUBSET FEATURE SELECTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Herniation in the lumbar area is one of the most common diseases which results in lower back pain (LBP) causing discomfort and inconvenience in the patients’ daily lives. A computer aided diagnosis (CAD) system can be of immense benefit as it generates diagnostic results within a short time while increasing precision of diagnosis and eliminating human errors. We have proposed a new method for automatic diagnosis of lumbar disc herniation based on clinical MRI data. We use T2-W sagittal and myelograph images. The presented method has been applied on 30 clinical cases, each containing 7 discs (210 lumbar discs) for the herniation diagnosis. We employ Otsu thresholding method to extract the spinal cord from MR images of lumbar disc. A third order polynomial is then aligned on the extracted spinal cords, and by the end of preprocessing stage, all the T2-W sagittal images will have been prepared for specifying disc boundary and labeling. Having extracted an ROI for each disc, we proceed to use intensity and shape features for classification. The extracted features have been selected by Local Subset Feature Selection. The results demonstrated 91.90%, 92.38% and 95.23% accuracy for artificial neural network, K-nearest neighbor and support vector machine (SVM) classifiers respectively, indicating the superiority of the proposed method to those mentioned in similar studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".