Accurate Automatic Glioma Segmentation in Brain MRI images Based on CapsNet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glioma is a highly invasive type of brain tumor with an irregular morphology and blurred infiltrative borders that may affect different parts of the brain. Therefore, it is a challenging task to identify the exact boundaries of the tumor in an MR image. In recent years, deep learning-based Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) have gained popularity in the field of image processing and have been utilized for accurate image segmentation in medical applications. However, due to the inherent constraints of CNNs, tens of thousands of images are required for training, and collecting and annotating such a large number of images poses a serious challenge for their practical implementation. Here, for the first time, we have optimized a network based on the capsule neural network called SegCaps, to achieve accurate glioma segmentation on MR images. We have compared our results with a similar experiment conducted using the commonly utilized U-Net. Both experiments were performed on the BraTS2020 challenging dataset. For U-Net, network training was performed on the entire dataset, whereas a subset containing only 20% of the whole dataset was used for the SegCaps. To evaluate the results of our proposed method, the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was used. SegCaps and U-Net reached DSC of 87.96% and 85.56% on glioma tumor core segmentation, respectively. The SegCaps uses convolutional layers as the basic components and has the intrinsic capability to generalize novel viewpoints. The network learns the spatial relationship between features using dynamic routing of capsules. These capabilities of the capsule neural network have led to a 3% improvement in results of glioma segmentation with fewer data while it contains 95.4% fewer parameters than U-Net.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".