MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389503871 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23445

Development of a semi-automatic segmentation technique based on mean magnetic resonance imaging intensity thresholding for volumetric quantification of plexiform neurofibromas

2023· article· en· W4389503871 on OpenAlexafffund
Dorsa Sadat Kiaei, Ramy El Jalbout, Jean‐Claude Décarie, Sébastien Perreault, Mathieu Dehaes

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma Cases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFondation du Grand défi Pierre Lavoie
KeywordsThresholdingMagnetic resonance imagingSegmentationIntensity (physics)Artificial intelligenceImage segmentationBiomedical engineeringComputer scienceNuclear magnetic resonanceComputer visionRadiologyMedicinePhysicsOpticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale and objectives Plexiform neurofibromas (PNs) are peripheral nerve tumors that occur in 25–50 % of patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. PNs may have complex, diffused, and irregular shapes. The objective of this work was to develop a volumetric quantification method for PNs as clinical assessment is currently based on unidimensional measurement. Materials and methods A semi-automatic segmentation technique based on mean magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) intensity thresholding (SSTMean) was developed and compared to a similar and previously published technique based on minimum image intensity thresholding (SSTMini). The performance (volume and computation time) of the two techniques was compared to manual tracings of 15 tumors of different locations, shapes, and sizes. Performance was also assessed using different MRI sequences. Reproducibility was assessed by inter-observer analysis. Results When compared to manual tracing, quantification performed with SSTMean was not significantly different (mean difference: 1.2 %), while volumes computed by SSTMini were significantly different (p < .0001, mean difference: 13.4 %). Volumes quantified by SSTMean were also significantly different than the ones assessed by SSTMini (p < .0001). Using SSTMean, volumes quantified with short TI inversion recovery (STIR), T1-, and T2-weighted imaging were not significantly different. Computation times used by SSTMean and SSTMini were significantly lower than for manual segmentation (p < .0001). The highest difference measured by two users was 8 cm 3 . Conclusion Our method showed accuracy compared to a current gold standard (manual tracing) and reproducibility between users. The refined segmentation threshold and the possibility to define multiple regions-of-interest to initiate segmentation may have contributed to its performance. The versatility and speed of our method may prove useful to better monitor volumetric changes in lesions of patients enrolled in clinical trials to assessing response to therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicNeurofibromatosis and Schwannoma CasesFrench-language works237,207