MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vertebral labeling on MRI using deep learning techniques

2018· article· en· W2923837225 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco Romero, Jean‐Pierre David, Julien Cohen‐Adad

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty of 1000 Research Ltd · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen peer reviewPlant biologyNeuroscienceMedicinePhysiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the diagnosis and monitoring of various diseases in the spine and the central nervous system, the detection and labeling of vertebrae in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful. Although several automatic methods for the detection and labeling of vertebrae have been developed, this is still an open task in which many improvements can be made. One way to detect the vertebra is to focus on the intervertebral discs (IVD), which are natural spacers between vertebrae. In this work, we present a set of convolutional networks (CNN) that perform regression for the detection and labeling of the IVD. The entry for each of the CNNs is the midsagittal plane image of the acquired volume. Each CNN is in charge of detecting one intervertebral disc, so the labeling is done implicitly. The output of each CNN is the coordinate (x, y) of the located IVD. We have done the training with the first 6 IVD (C2-C3 to C7-T1) using a total of 631 images with a pixel resolution of 1mm x 1mm. The mean error is between 2.98.mm and 4.33mm, the standard deviation range is between ±2.45 and ±3.45. Such results are competitive with the state of the art but require significantly less computational resources (estimated 2x) than other architectures based on fully convolutional networks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueFaculty of 1000 Research LtdSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207