MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385071653 · doi:10.1093/micmic/ozad067.486

Application of Deep Learning Image Segmentation to Synchrotron Radiation µCT Bone Microstructure Datasets

2023· article· en· W4385071653 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joshua T. Taylor, Md. Mozammil Hassan, Janna M. Andronowski

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNuclear Physics and Applications
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynchrotron radiationLibrary scienceComputer sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancements in 3D and in vivo 4D imaging techniques have allowed for significant developments in bone biological research. High-resolution modalities permit the detection and analysis of features associated with the lacuno-canalicular network (LCN), a framework for bone composition, quality, and strength [1]. The LCN has been the target of pharmaceutical agents for treating bone disorders [2] and is studied in biological anthropology to discern life history information, assess bone quality, and aid in age-at-death estimation. Further investigations of the LCN will inform understandings of bone remodeling and related processes under healthy and pathological conditions (e.g., osteoporosis). Image segmentation of biological data is used to isolate and quantify microstructural parameters of interest. Current techniques include manual segmentation and the application of thresholding and morphological operations. The former is time-consuming, and both are subject to error. The employment of deep learning segmentation, however, allows for consistent semi-automatic segmentation of data and has the potential to improve processing times and accuracy. Previous research [3] by our group indicates that deep learning image segmentation can achieve comparable results to established protocols for bone microstructure segmentation. The primary objective of this work is to improve upon existing results by using separate deep learning models for vascular pores and lacunae, while utilizing morphological operations to refine deep learning segmentation results. Healthy and pathological human left sixth rib samples from decedents of varying ages (21-54 years-at-death, mean age = 38 years) were obtained through collaboration with an American non-profit organ procurement organization. Cylindrical cores of cortical bone were procured for imaging experiments. Synchrotron µCT data were obtained using the BMIT Beamlines at the Canadian Light Source facility. The setup was equipped with a white beam microscope and a 5x objective lens to achieve a resolution of 1.5 µm. Four training datasets of ∼100 slices each were prepared through manual segmentation, thresholding, and morphological operations and reviewed to correct any errors. The most promising architecture was selected by training and testing models based on several architectures available in ORS Dragonfly [4]. Two models based on the same architecture were trained, one for the segmentation of vascular pores and another for lacunae. Results were compared against an established bone microarchitecture segmentation method using CTAN (Bruker). Manual segmentation and deep learning model training were performed in ORS Dragonfly [4]. The CTAN method relies exclusively on global thresholding and morphological operations. The pixel intensity thresholds are decided, and several automatic morphological operations are applied to refine the thresholding segmentation, including removing noise and closing gaps. Vascular pores and lacunae from ten comparative samples, distinct from the training datasets, were segmented to compare the two segmentation methods; the established protocol in CTAN and deep learning segmentation. Also, the data were manually segmented using the same method as the training datasets, and then used as a reference to compare the accuracy of the two methods. Descriptive statistics were extracted from the data and Levene’s and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests were conducted. If the samples violated normality, they were bootstrapped. Several parameters, including total lacunar and pore volumes, and average lacunar and pore sizes, were extracted from the segmentations and compared using t-tests and one-way ANOVAs. The segmentation results of the two tested protocols were also compared based on the Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Accuracy, and True Positive and Negative rates. Previous work [3] demonstrated that deep learning segmentation of bone microarchitectural data provides comparable results to an established protocol (CTAN). Our preliminary work using the UNet++ deep learning architecture [5] has indicated that using two deep learning models to segment pores and lacunae separately (two classes per model, where one class is the relevant structure and the other the background) can provide more accurate segmentations than a three-classes model segmenting pores and lacunae simultaneously. Relevant DSC values were obtained using a subsection of the training dataset as reference to compare the trained models' effectiveness. The three-classes lacunae and pores model achieved a DSC of 0.9810, while the two-classes models achieved a DSC of 0.9864 for lacunae and 0.9959 for pores. The improvement in DSC, and thus segmentation accuracy, when using two separate segmentation models indicates a potential that is worthy of more investigation. Additionally, morphological operations can be used to refine segmentations by eliminating noise and closing segmentation gaps, as seen in the established CTAN protocol. Such operations can be incorporated into a deep learning-based bone segmentation workflow. Combined with the improved accuracy of employing individual models for defined parameters, these changes to the segmentation protocol have the potential to increase the accuracy and precision of feature definition in bone, increase segmentation consistency, and reduce observer error.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicNuclear Physics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207