MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173270563 · doi:10.3390/s21134490

Cross Attention Squeeze Excitation Network (CASE-Net) for Whole Body Fetal MRI Segmentation

2021· article· en· W3173270563 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Lo, Saiee Nithiyanantham, Jillian Cardinell, Dylan Young, Sherwin Cho, Abirami Kirubarajan, Matthias Wagner, Roxana Azma, Steven P. Miller, Mike Seed, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Dafna Sussman

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFetal and Pediatric Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingDeep learningImage segmentationProcess (computing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmentation of the fetus from 2-dimensional (2D) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can aid radiologists with clinical decision making for disease diagnosis. Machine learning can facilitate this process of automatic segmentation, making diagnosis more accurate and user independent. We propose a deep learning (DL) framework for 2D fetal MRI segmentation using a Cross Attention Squeeze Excitation Network (CASE-Net) for research and clinical applications. CASE-Net is an end-to-end segmentation architecture with relevant modules that are evidence based. The goal of CASE-Net is to emphasize localization of contextual information that is relevant in biomedical segmentation, by combining attention mechanisms with squeeze-and-excitation (SE) blocks. This is a retrospective study with 34 patients. Our experiments have shown that our proposed CASE-Net achieved the highest segmentation Dice score of 87.36%, outperforming other competitive segmentation architectures.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designBench or experimental · Observational
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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicFetal and Pediatric Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207