3D Capsule Networks for Brain Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Current autosegmentation models such as UNets and nnUNets have limitations, including the inability to segment images that are not represented during training and lack of computational efficiency. 3D capsule networks have the potential to address these limitations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used 3430 brain MRIs, acquired in a multi-institutional study, to train and validate our models. We compared our capsule network with standard alternatives, UNets and nnUNets, on the basis of segmentation efficacy (Dice scores), segmentation performance when the image is not well-represented in the training data, performance when the training data are limited, and computational efficiency including required memory and computational speed. RESULTS: The capsule network segmented the third ventricle, thalamus, and hippocampus with Dice scores of 95%, 94%, and 92%, respectively, which were within 1% of the Dice scores of UNets and nnUNets. The capsule network significantly outperformed UNets in segmenting images that were not well-represented in the training data, with Dice scores 30% higher. The computational memory required for the capsule network is less than one-tenth of the memory required for UNets or nnUNets. The capsule network is also >25% faster to train compared with UNet and nnUNet. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a capsule network that is effective in segmenting brain images, can segment images that are not well-represented in the training data, and is computationally efficient compared with alternatives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".