MR Images, Brain Lesions, and Deep Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical brain image analysis is a necessary step in computer-assisted/computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems. Advancements in both hardware and software in the past few years have led to improved segmentation and classification of various diseases. In the present work, we review the published literature on systems and algorithms that allow for classification, identification, and detection of white matter hyperintensities (WMHs) of brain magnetic resonance (MR) images, specifically in cases of ischemic stroke and demyelinating diseases. For the selection criteria, we used bibliometric networks. Of a total of 140 documents, we selected 38 articles that deal with the main objectives of this study. Based on the analysis and discussion of the revised documents, there is constant growth in the research and development of new deep learning models to achieve the highest accuracy and reliability of the segmentation of ischemic and demyelinating lesions. Models with good performance metrics (e.g., Dice similarity coefficient, DSC: 0.99) were found; however, there is little practical application due to the use of small datasets and a lack of reproducibility. Therefore, the main conclusion is that there should be multidisciplinary research groups to overcome the gap between CAD developments and their deployment in the clinical environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".