Segmentation of Brain Metastases Using Background Layer Statistics (BLAST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Accurate segmentation of brain metastases is important for treatment planning and evaluating response. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of a semiautomated algorithm for brain metastases segmentation using Background Layer Statistics (BLAST). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with 48 parenchymal and dural brain metastases were included. Segmentation was performed by 4 neuroradiologists and 1 radiation oncologist. K-means clustering was used to identify normal gray and white matter (background layer) in a 2D parameter space of signal intensities from postcontrast T2 FLAIR and T1 MPRAGE sequences. The background layer was subtracted and operator-defined thresholds were applied in parameter space to segment brain metastases. The remaining voxels were back-projected to visualize segmentations in image space and evaluated by the operators. Segmentation performance was measured by calculating the Dice-Sørensen coefficient and Hausdorff distance using ground truth segmentations made by the investigators. Contours derived from the segmentations were evaluated for clinical acceptance using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The median Dice-Sørensen coefficient was 0.82 for all brain metastases and 0.9 for brain metastases of ≥10 mm. The median Hausdorff distance was 1.4 mm. Excellent interreader agreement for brain metastases volumes was found with an intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9978. The median segmentation time was 2.8 minutes/metastasis. Forty-five contours (94%) had a Likert score of 4 or 5, indicating that the contours were acceptable for treatment, requiring no changes or minor edits. CONCLUSIONS: We show accurate and reproducible segmentation of brain metastases using BLAST and demonstrate its potential as a tool for radiation planning and evaluating treatment response.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".