MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046930396 · doi:10.18280/ria.340302

State-of-the Art Optimal Multilevel Thresholding Methods for Brain MR Image Analysis

2020· article· en· W3046930396 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akankshya Das, Sanjay Agrawal, Leena Samantaray, Rutuparna Panda, Ajith Abraham

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThresholdingImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceState (computer science)Computer scienceComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain MR image analysis is a primary non-invasive component to detect any abnormality in the brain. It is a very important application in the field of medical image processing. For analysing brain MR images, there is a strong need to develop efficient image segmentation methods. Over the years, many image segmentation techniques have been suggested and their real life applications have also been studied. Implementation of these segmentation techniques in biomedical engineering is a major breakthrough. Intensive research works have been carried out explicitly on the analysis of human brain images and their subsequent detection of lesion cells using different segmentation methods. One of the easiest and most generally used method of segmentation is multilevel thresholding due to its precision and robustness against the other methods. To solve the problem of computational complexity for increasing threshold levels, various optimization algorithms are used for optimal multilevel thresholding. In this paper, an attempt is made to present a comprehensive review on the recent advancements in the area of brain MR image segmentation using optimal multilevel thresholding. This review is unique of its kind due to its exclusive emphasis on segmentation of brain MR image using thresholding technique only, which may not be present in the existing literature reviews. Different validation measures used for the multilevel image thresholding are discussed. A detailed comparison of the results obtained over the years is done. The merits and demerits of the methods are highlighted. This compilation aims to aid and encourage researchers to further explore the research in this direction.

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207