MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092442943 · doi:10.1002/mrm.28547

BISON: Brain tissue segmentation pipeline using T <sub>1</sub> ‐weighted magnetic resonance images and a random forest classifier

2020· article· en· W3092442943 on OpenAlexafffund
Mahsa Dadar, D. Louis Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueMagnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSegmentationRandom forestMagnetic resonance imagingArtificial intelligenceHyperintensityWhite matterComputer scienceImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)KappaNuclear medicineMedicineRadiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Tissue segmentation from T 1 ‐weighted (T1W) MRI is a critical requirement in many neuroscience and clinical applications. However, accurate tissue segmentation is challenging because of the variabilities in tissue intensity profiles caused by differences in scanner models, acquisition protocols, and age. In addition, many methods assume healthy anatomy and fail in the presence of pathology such as white matter hyperintensities (WMHs). We present BISON (Brain tISsue segmentatiON), a new pipeline for tissue segmentation using a random forest classifier and a set of intensity and location priors based on T1W MRI. Methods BISON was developed and cross‐validated using multiscanner manual labels of 72 subjects aged 5 to 96 years. We also assessed the test–retest reliability of BISON on two data sets: 20 subjects with scan/rescan MR images and manual segmentations and 90 scans from a single individual. The results were compared against Atropos, a state‐of‐the‐art commonly used tissue classification method from advanced normalization tools (ANTs). Results BISON cross‐validation dice kappa values against manual segmentations of 72 MRI volumes yielded κ GM = 0.88, κ WM = 0.85, κ CSF = 0.77, outperforming Atropos (κ GM = 0.79, κ WM = 0.84, κ CSF = 0.64), test–retest values on 20 subjects of κ GM = 0.94, κ WM = 0.92, κ CSF = 0.77 outperforming both manual (κ GM = 0.92, κ WM = 0.91, κ CSF =0.74) and Atropos (κ GM = 0.87, κ WM = 0.92, κ CSF = 0.79). Finally, BISON outperformed Atropos, FAST (fast automated segmentation tool) from the FMRIB (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain) Software Library, and SPM12 (statistical parametric mapping 12) in the presence of WMHs. Conclusion BISON can provide accurate and robust segmentations in data from various age ranges and scanner models, making it ideal for performing tissue classification in large multicenter and multiscanner databases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations49
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMagnetic Resonance in MedicineSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207