MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941578761 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2906605

Segmenting Hemorrhagic and Ischemic Infarct Simultaneously From Follow-Up Non-Contrast CT Images in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke

2019· article· en· W2941578761 on OpenAlexafffund
Hulin Kuang, Bijoy K. Menon, Wu Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceMedicineConvolutional neural networkContext (archaeology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationComputer scienceStroke (engine)Similarity measureRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral infarct volume (CIV) measured from follow-up non contrast CT (NCCT) scans of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients is an important radiologic outcome measure of the effectiveness of ischemic stroke treatment. Post-treatment CIV in NCCT of AIS patients typically includes ischemic infarct only. In around 10% of AIS patients, however, hemorrhagic transformation or frank hemorrhage occurs along with ischemic infarction. Manual segmentation used to segment CIV into these two components in clinical practice is tedious and user dependent. Although automated segmentation methods exist, they can only segment either hemorrhage or ischemic infarct alone. In order to measure post-treatment CIV more efficiently, a novel joint segmentation approach is proposed to segment ischemic and hemorrhage infarct simultaneously. The proposed method makes use of advances in deep learning and convex optimization techniques. Specifically, convolutional neural network learned semantic information, local image context, and high-level user initialized prior are integrated into a multi-region time-implicit contour evolution scheme, which can be globally optimized by convex relaxation. The proposed segmentation approach is quantitatively evaluated using 30 patient images using Dice similarity coefficient and the mean and maximum absolute surface distance, compared to the gold standard of manual segmentation. The results show that the proposed semi-automatic segmentation is accurate and robust, outperforming some state-of-the-art semi-and automatic segmentation approaches.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations62
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207