Interactive Machine Learning-Based Multi-Label Segmentation of Solid Tumors and Organs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We seek the development and evaluation of a fast, accurate, and consistent method for general-purpose segmentation, based on interactive machine learning (IML). To validate our method, we identified retrospective cohorts of 20 brain, 50 breast, and 50 lung cancer patients, as well as 20 spleen scans, with corresponding ground truth annotations. Utilizing very brief user training annotations and the adaptive geodesic distance transform, an ensemble of SVMs is trained, providing a patient-specific model applied to the whole image. Two experts segmented each cohort twice with our method and twice manually. The IML method was faster than manual annotation by 53.1% on average. We found significant (p < 0.001) overlap difference for spleen (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.91/0.87), breast tumors (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.84/0.82), and lung nodules (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.78/0.83). For intra-rater consistency, a significant (p = 0.003) difference was found for spleen (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.91/0.89). For inter-rater consistency, significant (p < 0.045) differences were found for spleen (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.91/0.87), breast (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.86/0.81), lung (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.85/0.89), the non-enhancing (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.79/0.67) and the enhancing (DiceIML/DiceManual = 0.79/0.84) brain tumor sub-regions, which, in aggregation, favored our method. Quantitative evaluation for speed, spatial overlap, and consistency, reveals the benefits of our proposed method when compared with manual annotation, for several clinically relevant problems. We publicly release our implementation through CaPTk (Cancer Imaging Phenomics Toolkit) and as an MITK plugin.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".