MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210461044 · doi:10.1101/2022.01.25.477747

Deep Learning Characterization of Brain Tumours With Diffusion Weighted Imaging

2022· preprint· en· W4210461044 on OpenAlexafffund
Cameron Meaney, Sunit Das, Errol Colak, Mohammad Kohandel

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)University of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDeep learningGlioblastomaPreprocessorComputer sciencePipeline (software)SegmentationRelevance (law)Machine learningProjection (relational algebra)Diffusion MRIPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineRadiologyCancer researchMagnetic resonance imagingAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is one of the most deadly forms of cancer. Methods of characterizing these tumours are valuable for improving predictions of their progression and response to treatment. A mathematical model called the proliferation-invasion (PI) model has been used extensively in the literature to model these tumours, though it relies on known values of two key parameters: the tumour cell diffusivity and proliferation rate. Unfortunately, these parameters are difficult to estimate in a patient-specific manner, making personalized tumour projections challenging. In this paper, we develop and apply a deep learning model capable of making accurate estimates of these key GBM-characterizing parameters while simultaneously producing a full projection of the tumour progression curve. Our method uses two sets of multi sequence MRI imaging in order to make predictions and relies on a preprocessing pipeline which includes brain tumour segmentation and conversion to tumour cellularity. We apply our deep learning model to both synthetic tumours and a dataset consisting of five patients diagnosed with GBM. For all patients, we derive evidence-based estimates for each of the PI model parameters and predictions for the future progression of the tumour. Discussion and implications for future work and clinical relevance are included.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207