Learning to Detect Boundary Information for Brain Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract MRI brain images are always of low contrast, which makes it difficult to identify to which area the information at the boundary of brain images belongs. This can make the extraction of features at the boundary more challenging, since those features can be misleading as they might mix properties of different brain regions. Hence, to alleviate such a problem, image boundary detection plays a vital role in medical image segmentation, and brain segmentation in particular, as unclear boundaries can worsen brain segmentation results. Yet, given the low quality of brain images, boundary detection in the context of brain image segmentation remains challenging. Despite the research invested to improve boundary detection and brain segmentation, these two problems were addressed independently, i.e., little attention was paid to applying boundary detection to brain segmentation tasks. Therefore, in this paper, we propose a boundary detection-based model for brain image segmentation. To this end, we first design a boundary segmentation network for detecting and segmenting images brain tissues. Then, we design a boundary information module (BIM) to distinguish boundaries from the three different brain tissues. After that, we add a boundary attention gate (BAG) to the encoder output layers of our transformer to capture more informative local details. We evaluate our proposed model on two datasets of brain tissue images, including infant and adult brains. The extensive evaluation experiments of our model show better performance (a Dice Coefficient (DC) accuracy of up to 5.3% compared to the state-of-the-art models) in detecting and segmenting brain tissue images.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".