MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep learning segmentation of orbital fat to calibrate conventional MRI for longitudinal studies

2019· article· en· W2992196493 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert A. Brown, Dumitru Fetco, Robert Fratila, Giulia Fadda, Shangge Jiang, Nuha M. Alkhawajah, E. Ann Yeh, Brenda Banwell, Amit Bar‐Or, Douglas L. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMultiple Sclerosis AustraliaMultiple Sclerosis Scientific Research Foundation
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceNormalization (sociology)SegmentationComputer scienceMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroimagingCalibrationDeep learningComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)White matterMagnetization transferMathematicsMedicineRadiologyStatisticsNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In conventional non-quantitative magnetic resonance imaging, image contrast is consistent within images, but absolute intensity can vary arbitrarily between scans. For quantitative analysis of intensity data, images are typically normalized to a consistent reference. The most convenient reference is a tissue that is always present in the image, and is unlikely to be affected by pathological processes. In multiple sclerosis neuroimaging, both the white and gray matter are affected, so normalization techniques that depend on brain tissue may introduce bias or remove biological changes of interest. We introduce a complementary procedure, image “calibration,” the goal of which is to remove technical intensity artifacts while preserving biological differences. We demonstrate a deep learning approach to segmenting fat from within the orbit of the eyes on T1-weighted images at 1.5 and 3 ​T to use as a reference tissue, and use it to calibrate 1018 scans from 256 participants in a study of pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis. The machine segmentations agreed with the adjudicating expert (DF) segmentations better than did those of other expert humans, and calibration resulted in better agreement with semi-quantitative magnetization transfer ratio imaging than did normalization with the WhiteStripe1 algorithm. We suggest that our method addresses two key priorities in the field: (1) it provides a robust option for serial calibration of conventional scans, allowing comparison of disease change in persons imaged at multiple time points in their disease; and (ii) the technique is fast, as the deep learning segmentation takes only 0.5 ​s/scan, which is feasible for both large and small datasets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicMultiple Sclerosis Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207