Deep Learning for Automated Segmentation of Liver Lesions at CT in Patients with Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the performance, agreement, and efficiency of a fully convolutional network (FCN) for liver lesion detection and segmentation at CT examinations in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLMs). Materials and Methods This retrospective study evaluated an automated method using an FCN that was trained, validated, and tested with 115, 15, and 26 contrast material–enhanced CT examinations containing 261, 22, and 105 lesions, respectively. Manual detection and segmentation by a radiologist was the reference standard. Performance of fully automated and user-corrected segmentations was compared with that of manual segmentations. The interuser agreement and interaction time of manual and user-corrected segmentations were assessed. Analyses included sensitivity and positive predictive value of detection, segmentation accuracy, Cohen κ, Bland-Altman analyses, and analysis of variance. Results In the test cohort, for lesion size smaller than 10 mm (n = 30), 10–20 mm (n = 35), and larger than 20 mm (n = 40), the detection sensitivity of the automated method was 10%, 71%, and 85%; positive predictive value was 25%, 83%, and 94%; Dice similarity coefficient was 0.14, 0.53, and 0.68; maximum symmetric surface distance was 5.2, 6.0, and 10.4 mm; and average symmetric surface distance was 2.7, 1.7, and 2.8 mm, respectively. For manual and user-corrected segmentation, κ values were 0.42 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 0.63) and 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.36, 0.72); normalized interreader agreement for lesion volume was −0.10 ± 0.07 (95% confidence interval) and −0.10 ± 0.08; and mean interaction time was 7.7 minutes ± 2.4 (standard deviation) and 4.8 minutes ± 2.1 (P < .001), respectively. Conclusion Automated detection and segmentation of CLM by using deep learning with convolutional neural networks, when manually corrected, improved efficiency but did not substantially change agreement on volumetric measurements. Keywords: Abdomen/GI, Adults, CT, Diagnosis, Liver, Metastases, Observer Performance, Segmentation, Supervised learning, Technology Assessment, Volume Analysis © RSNA, 2019 Supplemental material is available for this article.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it