Brain Tumour Image Segmentation Using Deep Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated segmentation of brain tumour from multimodal MR images is pivotal for the analysis and monitoring of disease progression. As gliomas are malignant and heterogeneous, efficient and accurate segmentation techniques are used for the successful delineation of tumours into intra-tumoural classes. Deep learning algorithms outperform on tasks of semantic segmentation as opposed to the more conventional, context-based computer vision approaches. Extensively used for biomedical image segmentation, Convolutional Neural Networks have significantly improved the state-of-the-art accuracy on the task of brain tumour segmentation. In this paper, we propose an ensemble of two segmentation networks: a 3D CNN and a U-Net, in a significant yet straightforward combinative technique that results in better and accurate predictions. Both models were trained separately on the BraTS-19 challenge dataset and evaluated to yield segmentation maps which considerably differed from each other in terms of segmented tumour sub-regions and were ensembled variably to achieve the final prediction. The suggested ensemble achieved dice scores of 0.750, 0.906 and 0.846 for enhancing tumour, whole tumour, and tumour core, respectively, on the validation set, performing favourably in comparison to the state-of-the-art architectures currently available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".