MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945947839 · doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00541

Stroke Lesion Segmentation in FLAIR MRI Datasets Using Customized Markov Random Fields

2019· article· en· W2945947839 on OpenAlexafffund
Nagesh K. Subbanna, Deepthi Rajashekar, Bastian Cheng, Götz Thomalla, Jens Fiehler, Tal Arbel, Nils D. Forkert

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neurology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFluid-attenuated inversion recoverySegmentationArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingClinical neurologyStroke (engine)MedicineComputer scienceRadiologyNeurosciencePsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robust and reliable stroke lesion segmentation is a crucial step toward employing lesion volume as an independent endpoint for randomized trials. The aim of this work was to develop and evaluate a novel method to segment sub-acute ischemic stroke lesions from fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets. After preprocessing of the datasets, a Bayesian technique based on Gabor textures extracted from the FLAIR signal intensities is utilized to generate a first estimate of the lesion segmentation. Using this initial segmentation, a customized voxel-level Markov random field model based on intensity as well as Gabor texture features is employed to refine the stroke lesion segmentation. The proposed method was developed and evaluated based on 151 multi-center datasets from three different databases using a leave-one-patient-out validation approach. The comparison of the automatically segmented stroke lesions with manual ground truth segmentation revealed an average Dice coefficient of 0.582, which is in the upper range of previously presented lesion segmentation methods using multi-modal MRI datasets. Furthermore, the results obtained by the proposed technique are superior compared to the results obtained by two methods based on convolutional neural networks and three phase level-sets, respectively, which performed best in the ISLES 2015 challenge using multi-modal imaging datasets. The results of the quantitative evaluation suggest that the proposed method leads to robust lesion segmentation results using FLAIR MRI datasets only as a follow-up sequence.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeurologySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207