Evaluating White Matter Lesion Segmentations with Refined Sørensen-Dice Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sørensen-Dice index (SDI) is a widely used measure for evaluating medical image segmentation algorithms. It offers a standardized measure of segmentation accuracy which has proven useful. However, it offers diminishing insight when the number of objects is unknown, such as in white matter lesion segmentation of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. We present a refinement for finer grained parsing of SDI results in situations where the number of objects is unknown. We explore these ideas with two case studies showing what can be learned from our two presented studies. Our first study explores an inter-rater comparison, showing that smaller lesions cannot be reliably identified. In our second case study, we demonstrate fusing multiple MS lesion segmentation algorithms based on the insights into the algorithms provided by our analysis to generate a segmentation that exhibits improved performance. This work demonstrates the wealth of information that can be learned from refined analysis of medical image segmentations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it