MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912848025 · doi:10.1002/hbm.24803

Accurate and robust segmentation of neuroanatomy in T1‐weighted MRI by combining spatial priors with deep convolutional neural networks

2019· preprint· en· W2912848025 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip Novosad, Vladimir Fonov, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversity of California, San DiegoGenentechUniversity of California, Los AngelesU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationNational Institutes of HealthCanada First Research Excellence FundEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheElanNovartisMedpaceGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbPfizerSynarcNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's AssociationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsSørensen–Dice coefficientSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceConvolutional neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)PopulationDeep learningPrior probabilityRobustness (evolution)Image segmentationComputer visionBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Neuroanatomical segmentation in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain is a prerequisite for quantitative volume, thickness, and shape measurements, as well as an important intermediate step in many preprocessing pipelines. This work introduces a new highly accurate and versatile method based on 3D convolutional neural networks for the automatic segmentation of neuroanatomy in T1‐weighted MRI. In combination with a deep 3D fully convolutional architecture, efficient linear registration‐derived spatial priors are used to incorporate additional spatial context into the network. An aggressive data augmentation scheme using random elastic deformations is also used to regularize the networks, allowing for excellent performance even in cases where only limited labeled training data are available. Applied to hippocampus segmentation in an elderly population (mean Dice coefficient = 92.1%) and subcortical segmentation in a healthy adult population (mean Dice coefficient = 89.5%), we demonstrate new state‐of‐the‐art accuracies and a high robustness to outliers. Further validation on a multistructure segmentation task in a scan–rescan dataset demonstrates accuracy (mean Dice coefficient = 86.6%) similar to the scan–rescan reliability of expert manual segmentations (mean Dice coefficient = 86.9%), and improved reliability compared to both expert manual segmentations and automated segmentations using FIRST. Furthermore, our method maintains a highly competitive runtime performance (e.g., requiring only 10 s for left/right hippocampal segmentation in 1 × 1 × 1 mm3 MNI stereotaxic space), orders of magnitude faster than conventional multiatlas segmentation methods.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207