MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118976902 · doi:10.18280/ts.370611

Glioma Segmentation and Classification System Based on Proposed Texture Features Extraction Method and Hybrid Ensemble Learning

2020· article· en· W3118976902 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kirti Raj Bhatele, Sarita Singh Bhadauria

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Local binary patternsThresholdingSegmentationFeature extractionDiscrete wavelet transformWaveletFluid-attenuated inversion recoveryWavelet transformHistogramMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an efficient and accurate automated system based on the hybrid XGBoost with Random forest (XGBRF) ensemble model in order to classify the Glioma (type of mostly diagnosed brain tumor) into low grade and high grade Glioma. In this approach initially global thresholding is employed on various MRI sequence and their fusion combinations in order to perform the accurate segmentation. Then uses a proposed Enhanced wavelet binary pattern run length matrix method (EWBPRL) for textural features extraction from the region of interest or segmented Glioma tumor region. This proposed feature extraction method is based on the Discrete wavelet transform (DWT), Local Binary pattern (LBP) and Gray level run length Matrix (GLRLM) methods to extract texture features from the segmented region. Some morphological features are also computed from the segmented region along the textural features. Finally both these extracted features are employed in order to train a hybrid XGBoost with Random forest ensemble model for the first time. The proposed automated system apart from accurately detecting and segmenting the tumors region from the fused MRI sequences, also tends to determine the grading of Glioma in terms of severity. The proposed system is evaluated on the large size balance local dataset and as well as on the popular global datasets like BRATS 2013 and BRATS 2015. This approach offers an encouraging accuracy of 99.25% on the local dataset with the fusion of T1C+T2+Flair MRI sequence as compare to 96.75% accuracy, which is achieved utilizing the fusion of T1+T1C+T2+Flair MRI sequence.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.482
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207