Fully automatic segmentation of brain lacunas resulting from resective surgery using a 3D deep learning model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid and constant development of deep learning (DL) strategies is pushing forward the quality of object segmentation in images from diverse fields of interest. In particular, these algorithms can be very helpful in delineating brain abnormalities (lesions, tumors, lacunas, etc), enabling the extraction of information such as volume and location, that can inform doctors or feed predictive models. Here, we describe ResectVol DL, a fully automatic tool developed to segment resective lacunas in brain images of patients with epilepsy. ResectVol DL relies on the nnU-Net framework that leverages the 3D U-Net deep learning architecture. T1-weighted MRI datasets from 120 patients (57 women; 31.5 ± 15.9 years old at surgery) were used to train (n=78) and test (n=48) our tool. Manual segmentations were carried out by five different raters and were considered as ground truth for performance assessment. We compared ResectVol DL with two other fully automatic methods: ResectVol 1.1.2 and DeepResection, using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Pearson's correlation coefficient, and relative difference to manual segmentation. ResectVol DL presented the highest median DSC (0.92 vs. 0.78 and 0.90), the highest correlation coefficient (0.99 vs. 0.63 and 0.94), and the lowest median relative difference (9 vs. 44 and 12 %). Overall, we demonstrate that ResectVol DL accurately segments brain lacunas, which has the potential to assist in the development of predictive models for postoperative cognitive and seizure outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".