Deep learning-based cerebral aneurysm segmentation and morphological analysis with three-dimensional rotational angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The morphological assessment of cerebral aneurysms based on cerebral angiography is an essential step when planning strategy and device selection in endovascular treatment, but manual evaluation by human raters only has moderate interrater/intrarater reliability. METHODS: We collected data for 889 cerebral angiograms from consecutive patients with suspected cerebral aneurysms at our institution from January 2017 to October 2021. The automatic morphological analysis model was developed on the derivation cohort dataset consisting of 388 scans with 437 aneurysms, and the performance of the model was tested on the validation cohort dataset consisting of 96 scans with 124 aneurysms. Five clinically important parameters were automatically calculated by the model: aneurysm volume, maximum aneurysm size, neck size, aneurysm height, and aspect ratio. RESULTS: On the validation cohort dataset the average aneurysm size was 7.9±4.6 mm. The proposed model displayed high segmentation accuracy with a mean Dice similarity index of 0.87 (median 0.93). All the morphological parameters were significantly correlated with the reference standard (all P<0.0001; Pearson correlation analysis). The difference in the maximum aneurysm size between the model prediction and reference standard was 0.5±0.7 mm (mean±SD). The difference in neck size between the model prediction and reference standard was 0.8±1.7 mm (mean±SD). CONCLUSION: The automatic aneurysm analysis model based on angiography data exhibited high accuracy for evaluating the morphological characteristics of cerebral aneurysms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".