Naïve Bayes classifier assisted automated detection of cerebral microbleeds in susceptibility-weighted imaging brain images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) in the brain are the essential indicators of critical brain disorders such as dementia and ischemic stroke. Generally, CMBs are detected manually by experts, which is an exhaustive task with limited productivity. Since CMBs have complex morphological nature, manual detection is prone to errors. This paper presents a machine learning-based automated CMB detection technique in the brain susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) scans based on statistical feature extraction and classification. The proposed method consists of three steps: (1) removal of the skull and extraction of the brain; (2) thresholding for the extraction of initial candidates; and (3) extracting features and applying classification models such as random forest and naïve Bayes classifiers for the detection of true positive CMBs. The proposed technique is validated on a dataset consisting of 20 subjects. The dataset is divided into training data that consist of 14 subjects with 104 microbleeds and testing data that consist of 6 subjects with 63 microbleeds. We were able to achieve 85.7% sensitivity using the random forest classifier with 4.2 false positives per CMB, and the naïve Bayes classifier achieved 90.5% sensitivity with 5.5 false positives per CMB. The proposed technique outperformed many state-of-the-art methods proposed in previous studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".