MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic segmentation of cerebral infarcts in follow-up computed tomography images with convolutional neural networks

2019· article· en· W2990030464 on OpenAlex
Renan Sales Barros, Manon L. Tolhuisen, Anna M.M. Boers, Ivo G.H. Jansen, Елена Пономарева, Diederik W.J. Dippel, Aad van der Lugt, Robert J. van Oostenbrugge, Wim H. van Zwam, Olvert A. Berkhemer, Mayank Goyal, Andrew M. Demchuk, Bijoy K. Menon, Peter Mitchell, Michael D. Hill, Tudor G. Jovin, Antoni Dávalos, Bruce Campbell, Jeffrey L. Saver, Yvo B.W.E.M. Roos, Keith W. Muir, Phil White, Serge Bracard, Françis Guillemin, Sílvia D. Olabarriaga, Charles B.L.M. Majoie, Henk A. Marquering

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersITEA3National Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineConvolutional neural networkComputed tomographyArtificial intelligenceSegmentationRadiologyTomographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarct volume is a valuable outcome measure in treatment trials of acute ischemic stroke and is strongly associated with functional outcome. Its manual volumetric assessment is, however, too demanding to be implemented in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) in the automatic segmentation of infarct volume in follow-up CT images in a large population of patients with acute ischemic stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included CT images of 1026 patients from a large pooling of patients with acute ischemic stroke. A reference standard for the infarct segmentation was generated by manual delineation. We introduce three CNN models for the segmentation of subtle, intermediate, and severe hypodense lesions. The fully automated infarct segmentation was defined as the combination of the results of these three CNNs. The results of the three-CNNs approach were compared with the results from a single CNN approach and with the reference standard segmentations. RESULTS: The median infarct volume was 48 mL (IQR 15-125 mL). Comparison between the volumes of the three-CNNs approach and manually delineated infarct volumes showed excellent agreement, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.88. Even better agreement was found for severe and intermediate hypodense infarcts, with ICCs of 0.98 and 0.93, respectively. Although the number of patients used for training in the single CNN approach was much larger, the accuracy of the three-CNNs approach strongly outperformed the single CNN approach, which had an ICC of 0.34. CONCLUSION: Convolutional neural networks are valuable and accurate in the quantitative assessment of infarct volumes, for both subtle and severe hypodense infarcts in follow-up CT images. Our proposed three-CNNs approach strongly outperforms a more straightforward single CNN approach.

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 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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