MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220791370 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.794125

A Novel Prediction Model for Brain Glioma Image Segmentation Based on the Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensate

2022· article· en· W4220791370 on OpenAlexaff
Tian Chi Zhang, Jing Zhang, Shou Cun Chen, Bacem Saada

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsKernel (algebra)SegmentationGliomaComputer scienceImage segmentationLine (geometry)PhysicsArtificial intelligenceRange (aeronautics)Statistical physicsAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometryCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The input image of a blurry glioma image segmentation is, usually, very unclear. It is difficult to obtain the accurate contour line of image segmentation. The main challenge facing the researchers is to correctly determine the area where the points on the contour line belong to the glioma image. This article highlights the mechanism of formation of glioma and provides an image segmentation prediction model to assist in the accurate division of glioma contour points. The proposed prediction model of segmentation associated with the process of the formation of glioma is innovative and challenging. Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) is a microscopic quantum phenomenon in which atoms condense to the ground state of energy as the temperature approaches absolute zero. In this article, we propose a BEC kernel function and a novel prediction model based on the BEC kernel to detect the relationship between the process of the BEC and the formation of a brain glioma. Furthermore, the theoretical derivation and proof of the prediction model are given from micro to macro through quantum mechanics, wave, oscillation of glioma, and statistical distribution of laws. The prediction model is a distinct segmentation model that is guided by BEC theory for blurry glioma image segmentation. Results: Our approach is based on five tests. The first three tests aimed at confirming the measuring range of T and μ in the BEC kernel. The results are extended from -10 to 10, approximating the standard range to T ≤ 0, and μ from 0 to 6.7. Tests 4 and 5 are comparison tests. The comparison in Test 4 was based on various established cluster methods. The results show that our prediction model in image evaluation parameters of P, R, and F is the best amongst all the existent ten forms except for only one reference with the mean value of F that is between 0.88 and 0.93, while our approach returns between 0.85 and 0.99. Test 5 aimed to further compare our results, especially with CNN (Convolutional Neural Networks) methods, by challenging Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) and clinic patient datasets. Our results were also better than all reference tests. In addition, the proposed prediction model with the BEC kernel is feasible and has a comparative validity in glioma image segmentation. Conclusions: Theoretical derivation and experimental verification show that the prediction model based on the BEC kernel can solve the problem of accurate segmentation of blurry glioma images. It demonstrates that the BEC kernel is a more feasible, valid, and accurate approach than a lot of the recent year segmentation methods. It is also an advanced and innovative model of prediction deducing from micro BEC theory to macro glioma image 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 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)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207