MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390722060 · doi:10.1101/2024.01.03.24300794

SCIseg: Automatic Segmentation of T2-weighted Intramedullary Lesions in Spinal Cord Injury

2024· preprint· en· W4390722060 on OpenAlexafffund
Enamundram Naga Karthik, Jan Valošek, Andrew C. Smith, Dario Pfyffer, Simon Schading‐Sassenhausen, Lynn Farner, Kenneth A. Weber, Patrick Freund, Julien Cohen‐Adad

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustinePolytechnique MontréalMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeCanada First Research Excellence FundNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaInstitut pour la Recherche sur la Moelle épinière et l'EncéphaleCraig H. Neilsen FoundationBoettcher FoundationMinisterstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské RepublikyInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesEuropean Commission
KeywordsIntramedullary rodSpinal cord injurySegmentationMedicineSpinal cordCordComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To develop a deep learning tool for the automatic segmentation of T2-weighted intramedullary lesions in spinal cord injury (SCI). Material and Methods This retrospective study included a cohort of SCI patients from three sites enrolled between July 2002 and February 2023. A deep learning model, SCIseg , was trained in a three-phase process involving active learning for the automatic segmentation of intramedullary SCI lesions and the spinal cord. The data consisted of T2-weighted MRI acquired using different scanner manufacturers with heterogeneous image resolutions (isotropic/anisotropic), orientations (axial/sagittal), lesion etiologies (traumatic/ischemic/hemorrhagic) and lesions spread across the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. The segmentations from the proposed model were visually and quantitatively compared with other open-source baselines. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare quantitative MRI biomarkers (lesion volume, lesion length, and maximal axial damage ratio) computed from manual lesion masks and those obtained automatically with SCIseg predictions. Results MRI data from 191 SCI patients (mean age, 48.1 years ± 17.9 [SD]; 142 males) were used for model training and evaluation. SCIseg achieved the best segmentation performance for both the cord and lesions. There was no statistically significant difference between lesion length and maximal axial damage ratio computed from manually annotated lesions and those obtained using SCIseg . Conclusion Automatic segmentation of intramedullary lesions commonly seen in SCI replaces the tedious manual annotation process and enables the extraction of relevant lesion morphometrics in large cohorts. The proposed model segments lesions across different etiologies, scanner manufacturers, and heterogeneous image resolutions. SCIseg is open-source and accessible through the Spinal Cord Toolbox. Summary Automatic segmentation of the spinal cord and T2-weighted lesions in spinal cord injury on MRI scans across different treatment strategies, lesion etiologies, sites, scanner manufacturers, and heterogeneous image resolutions. Key Results An open-source, automatic method, SCIseg , was trained and evaluated on a dataset of 191 spinal cord injury patients from three sites for the segmentation of the spinal cord and T2-weighted lesions. SCIseg generalizes across traumatic and non-traumatic lesions, scanner manufacturers, and heterogeneous image resolutions, enabling the automatic extraction of lesion morphometrics in large multi-site cohorts. Quantitative MRI biomarkers, namely, lesion length and maximal axial damage ratio derived from the automatic predictions showed no statistically significant difference when compared with manual ground truth, implying reliability in SCIseg’s predictions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.357 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207