Automatic segmentation of cerebral infarcts in follow-up computed tomography images with convolutional neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".