Multi-class Brain Tumor Segmentation using Graph Attention Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain tumor segmentation from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in diagnostic radiology. To overcome the practical issues in manual approaches, there is a huge demand for building automatic tumor segmentation algorithms. This work introduces an efficient brain tumor summation model by exploiting the advancement in MRI and graph neural networks (GNNs). The model represents the multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data as a region adjacency graph (RAG) and learns to identify the type of tumors through a graph attention network (GAT)—a variant of GNNs. The ablation analysis conducted on two benchmark datasets proves that the proposed model can produce competitive results compared to the leading-edge solutions. It achieves mean dice scores of 0.91, 0.86, 0.79, and mean Hausdorff distances in 95th percentile (HD95) of 5.91, 6.08, and 9.52 mm, respectively, for whole tumor (WT), core tumor (CT), and enhancing tumor (ET) segmentation on BraTS2021 validation dataset. On average, these performances are > 6% and > 50%, compared to a GNNbased baseline, respectively, on dice score and HD95 evaluation metrics.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".