MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214565892 · doi:10.18280/ria.350505

SRGAN Assisted Encoder-Decoder Deep Neural Network for Colorectal Polyp Semantic Segmentation

2021· article· en· W3214565892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mohan Mahanty, Debnath Bhattacharyya, Divya Midhunchakkaravarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSegmentationEncoderBenchmark (surveying)ColonoscopyComputer scienceColorectal PolypDeep learningSørensen–Dice coefficientDiceColorectal cancerArtificial neural networkPattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationRadiologyMedicineCancerInternal medicineMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colon cancer is thought about as the third most regularly identified cancer after Brest and lung cancer. Most colon cancers are adenocarcinomas developing from adenomatous polyps, grow on the intima of the colon. The standard procedure for polyp detection is colonoscopy, where the success of the standard colonoscopy depends on the colonoscopist experience and other environmental factors. Nonetheless, throughout colonoscopy procedures, a considerable number (8-37%) of polyps are missed due to human mistakes, and these missed polyps are the prospective reason for colorectal cancer cells. In the last few years, many research groups developed deep learning-based computer-aided (CAD) systems that recommended many techniques for automated polyp detection, localization, and segmentation. Still, accurate polyp detection, segmentation is required to minimize polyp miss out rates. This paper suggested a Super-Resolution Generative Adversarial Network (SRGAN) assisted Encoder-Decoder network for fully automated colon polyp segmentation from colonoscopic images. The proposed deep learning model incorporates the SRGAN in the up-sampling process to achieve more accurate polyp segmentation. We examined our model on the publicly available benchmark datasets CVC-ColonDB and Warwick- QU. The model accomplished a dice score of 0.948 on the CVC-ColonDB dataset, surpassed the recently advanced state-of-the-art (SOTA) techniques. When it is evaluated on the Warwick-QU dataset, it attains a Dice Score of 0.936 on part A and 0.895 on Part B. Our model showed more accurate results for sessile and smaller-sized polyps.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207