MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006982737 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab8535

A physics-guided modular deep-learning based automated framework for tumor segmentation in PET

2020· article· en· W3006982737 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
KeywordsSegmentationDiceContext (archaeology)Modular designGeneralizability theoryPositron emission tomographyPattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Image segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An important need exists for reliable positron emission tomography (PET) tumor-segmentation methods for tasks such as PET-based radiation-therapy planning and reliable quantification of volumetric and radiomic features. To address this need, we propose an automated physics-guided deep-learning-based three-module framework to segment PET images on a per-slice basis. The framework is designed to help address the challenges of limited spatial resolution and lack of clinical training data with known ground-truth tumor boundaries in PET. The first module generates PET images containing highly realistic tumors with known ground-truth using a new stochastic and physics-based approach, addressing lack of training data. The second module trains a modified U-net using these images, helping it learn the tumor-segmentation task. The third module fine-tunes this network using a small-sized clinical dataset with radiologist-defined delineations as surrogate ground-truth, helping the framework learn features potentially missed in simulated tumors. The framework was evaluated in the context of segmenting primary tumors in 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET images of patients with lung cancer. The framework’s accuracy, generalizability to different scanners, sensitivity to partial volume effects (PVEs) and efficacy in reducing the number of training images were quantitatively evaluated using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and several other metrics. The framework yielded reliable performance in both simulated (DSC: 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86, 0.88)) and patient images (DSC: 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.76)), outperformed several widely used semi-automated approaches, accurately segmented relatively small tumors (smallest segmented cross-section was 1.83 cm 2 ), generalized across five PET scanners (DSC: 0.74 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.76)), was relatively unaffected by PVEs, and required low training data (training with data from even 30 patients yielded DSC of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.71)). In conclusion, the proposed automated physics-guided deep-learning-based PET-segmentation framework yielded reliable performance in delineating tumors in FDG-PET images of patients with lung cancer.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.302 · 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