Attention‐gated U‐Net networks for simultaneous axial/sagittal planes segmentation of injured spinal cords
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging is currently the gold standard for the evaluation of spinal cord injuries. Automatic analysis of these injuries is however challenging, as MRI resolutions vary for different planes of analysis and physiological features are often distorted around these injuries. This study proposes a new CNN-based segmentation method in which information is exchanged between two networks analyzing the scans from different planes. Our aim was to develop a robust method for automatic segmentation of the spinal cord in patients having suffered traumatic injuries. The database consisted of 106 sagittal MRI scans from 94 patients with traumatic spinal cord injuries. Our method used an innovative approach where the scans were analyzed in series under the axial and sagittal plane by two different convolutional networks. The results were compared with those of Deepseg 2D from the Spinal Cord Toolbox (SCT), which was taken as state-of-the-art. Comparisons were evaluated using K-Fold cross-validation combined with statistical t-test results on separate test data. Our method achieved significantly better results than Deepseg 2D, with an average Dice coefficient of 0.95 against 0.88 for Deepseg 2D (p <0.001). Other metrics were also used to compare the segmentations, all of which showed significantly better results for our approach. In this study, we introduce a robust method for spinal cord segmentation which is capable of adequately segmenting spinal cords affected by traumatic injuries, improving upon the methods contained in SCT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".