Using transfer learning for automated microbleed segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cerebral microbleeds are small perivascular hemorrhages that can occur in both gray and white matter brain regions. Microbleeds are a marker of cerebrovascular pathology and are associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Microbleeds can be identified and manually segmented by expert radiologists and neurologists, usually from susceptibility-contrast MRI. The latter is hard to harmonize across scanners, while manual segmentation is laborious, time-consuming, and subject to interrater and intrarater variability. Automated techniques so far have shown high accuracy at a neighborhood ("patch") level at the expense of a high number of false positive voxel-wise lesions. We aimed to develop an automated, more precise microbleed segmentation tool that can use standardizable MRI contrasts. Methods: MRIs. We then used transfer learning to train the network for the detection of microbleeds with the same contrasts. As a final step, we employed a combination of morphological operators and rules at the local lesion level to remove false positives. Manual segmentation of microbleeds from 78 participants was used to train and validate the system. We assessed the impact of patch size, freezing weights of the initial layers, mini-batch size, learning rate, and data augmentation on the performance of the Microbleed ResNet50 network. Results: The proposed method achieved high performance, with a patch-level sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 99.57, 99.16, and 99.93%, respectively. At a per lesion level, sensitivity, precision, and Dice similarity index values were 89.1, 20.1, and 0.28% for cortical GM; 100, 100, and 1.0% for deep GM; and 91.1, 44.3, and 0.58% for WM, respectively. Discussion: The proposed microbleed segmentation method is more suitable for the automated detection of microbleeds with high sensitivity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".