MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387831820 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3326342

PCSS: Skull Stripping With Posture Correction From 3D Brain MRI for Diverse Imaging Environment

2023· article· en· W4387831820 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kei Nishimaki, Kumpei Ikuta, Shingo Fujiyama, Kenichi Oishi, Hitoshi Iyatomi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthGenentechIXICOH. Lundbeck A/SServierEisaiNorthern California Institute for Research and EducationF. Hoffmann-La RocheUniversity of Southern CaliforniaBiogenEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers SquibbBioClinicaU.S. Department of DefenseMeso Scale DiagnosticsAlzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging InitiativeNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationPfizerAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsSkullNeuroimagingStripping (fiber)Computer scienceNeuroscienceMedicineAnatomyMaterials sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A subject’s head position in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners can vary significantly with the imaging environment and disease status. This variation is known to influence the accuracy of skull stripping (SS), a method to extract the brain region from the whole head image, which is an essential initial step to attain high performance in various neuroimaging applications. However, existing SS methods have failed to accommodate this wide range of variation. To achieve accurate, consistent, and fast SS, we introduce a novel two-stage methodology that we call posture correction skull stripping (PCSS): the first involves adjusting the subject’s head angle and position, and the second involves the actual SS to generate the brain mask. PCSS also incorporates various machine learning techniques, such as a weighted loss function, adversarial training from generative adversarial networks, and ensemble methods. Thorough evaluations conducted on five publicly accessible datasets show that the PCSS method outperforms current state-of-the-art techniques in SS performance, achieving an average increase of 1.38 points on the Dice score and demonstrating the contributions of each PCSS component technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207