AI-Based Automated Lipomatous Tumor Segmentation in MR Images: Ensemble Solution to Heterogeneous Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) has been proposed to automate image segmentation and provide accuracy, consistency, and efficiency. Accurate segmentation of lipomatous tumors (LTs) is critical for correct tumor radiomics analysis and localization. The major challenge of this task is data heterogeneity, including tumor morphological characteristics and multicenter scanning protocols. To mitigate the issue, we aimed to develop a DL-based Super Learner (SL) ensemble framework with different data correction and normalization methods. Pathologically proven LTs on pre-operative T1-weighted/proton-density MR images of 185 patients were manually segmented. The LTs were categorized by tumor locations as distal upper limb (DUL), distal lower limb (DLL), proximal upper limb (PUL), proximal lower limb (PLL), or Trunk (T) and grouped by 80%/9%/11% for training, validation and testing. Six configurations of correction/normalization were applied to data for fivefold-cross-validation trainings, resulting in 30 base learners (BLs). A SL was obtained from the BLs by optimizing SL weights. The performance was evaluated by dice-similarity-coefficient (DSC), sensitivity, specificity, and Hausdorff distance (HD95). For predictions of the BLs, the average DSC, sensitivity, and specificity from the testing data were 0.72 [Formula: see text] 0.16, 0.73 [Formula: see text] 0.168, and 0.99 [Formula: see text] 0.012, respectively, while for SL predictions were 0.80 [Formula: see text] 0.184, 0.78 [Formula: see text] 0.193, and 1.00 [Formula: see text] 0.010. The average HD95 of the BLs were 11.5 (DUL), 23.2 (DLL), 25.9 (PUL), 32.1 (PLL), and 47.9 (T) mm, whereas of SL were 1.7, 8.4, 15.9, 2.2, and 36.6 mm, respectively. The proposed method could improve the segmentation accuracy and mitigate the performance instability and data heterogeneity aiding the differential diagnosis of LTs in real clinical situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".