A cascaded deep network for automated tumor detection and segmentation in clinical PET imaging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate detection and segmentation of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) from PET images has important implications for estimation of total metabolic tumor volume, radiomics analysis, surgical intervention and radiotherapy. Manual segmentation of tumors in whole-body PET images is time-consuming, labor-intensive and operator-dependent. In this work, we develop and validate a fast and efficient three-step cascaded deep learning model for automated detection and segmentation of DLBCL tumors from PET images. As compared to a single end-to-end network for segmentation of tumors in whole-body PET images, our three-step model is more effective (improves 3D Dice score from 58.9% to 78.1%) since each of its specialized modules, namely the slice classifier, the tumor detector and the tumor segmentor, can be trained independently to a high degree of skill to carry out a specific task, rather than a single network with suboptimal performance on overall segmentation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".