MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049752087 · doi:10.3174/ajnr.a6704

Deep Learning for Pediatric Posterior Fossa Tumor Detection and Classification: A Multi-Institutional Study

2020· article· en· W3049752087 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer L. Quon, Wasif Bala, L.C. Chen, Jason N. Wright, Lily H. Kim, Michelle Han, Katie Shpanskaya, Edward H. Lee, Elizabeth Tong, Michael Iv, Jayne Seekins, Matthew P. Lungren, Kristina R. M. Braun, Tina Young Poussaint, Suzanne Laughlin, Michael D. Taylor, Robert M. Lober, Hannes Vogel, Paul G. Fisher, Gerald A. Grant, Vijay Ramaswamy, Nicholas A. Vitanza, Chang Yueh Ho, Michael S. B. Edwards, Samuel Cheshier, Kristen W. Yeom

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Neuroradiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePilocytic astrocytomaMedulloblastomaEpendymomaPosterior fossaRadiologyPonsGliomaAstrocytomaPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Posterior fossa tumors are the most common pediatric brain tumors. MR imaging is key to tumor detection, diagnosis, and therapy guidance. We sought to develop an MR imaging-based deep learning model for posterior fossa tumor detection and tumor pathology classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 88). There were 199 controls. Tumor histology served as ground truth except for diffuse midline glioma of the pons, which was primarily diagnosed by MR imaging. A modified ResNeXt-50-32x4d architecture served as the backbone for a multitask classifier model, using T2-weighted MRIs as input to detect the presence of tumor and predict tumor class. Deep learning model performance was compared against that of 4 radiologists. RESULTS: score were higher than those of 2 of the 4 radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: We present a multi-institutional deep learning model for pediatric posterior fossa tumor detection and classification with the potential to augment and improve the accuracy of radiologic diagnosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations77
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of NeuroradiologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207