MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987112586 · doi:10.1101/845537

Unsupervised domain adaptation for the automated segmentation of neuroanatomy in MRI: a deep learning approach

2019· preprint· en· W2987112586 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip Novosad, Vladimir Fonov, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkGeneralizability theoryDomain adaptationDomain (mathematical analysis)Pattern recognition (psychology)NeuroanatomyContext (archaeology)Machine learningDeep learningArtificial neural networkClassifier (UML)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Neuroanatomical segmentation in T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the brain is a prerequisite for quantitative morphological measurements, as well as an essential element in general pre-processing pipelines. While recent fully automated segmentation methods based on convolutional neural networks have shown great potential, these methods nonetheless suffer from severe performance degradation when there are mismatches between training (source) and testing (target) domains (e.g. due to different scanner acquisition protocols or due to anatomical differences in the respective populations under study). This work introduces a new method for unsupervised domain adaptation which improves performance in challenging cross-domain applications without requiring any additional annotations on the target domain. Using a previously validated state-of-the-art segmentation method based on a context-augmented convolutional neural network, we first demonstrate that networks with better domain generalizability can be trained using extensive data augmentation with label-preserving transformations which mimic differences between domains. Second, we incorporate unlabelled target domain samples into training using a self-ensembling approach, demonstrating further performance gains, and further diminishing the performance gap in comparison to fully-supervised training on the target domain.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207