MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392592951 · doi:10.1049/ipr2.13048

Brain tumour segmentation framework with deep nuanced reasoning and Swin‐T

2024· article· en· W4392592951 on OpenAlexaff
Xu Yang, Kun Yu, Guanqiu Qi, Yifei Gong, Xiaolong Qu, Yin Li, Pan Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Image Processing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChongqing Medical UniversityChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNatural Science Foundation of ChongqingChongqing University
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceUpsamplingDeep learningImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Scale-space segmentationFocus (optics)Feature (linguistics)Computer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tumour medical image segmentation plays a crucial role in clinical imaging diagnosis. Existing research has achieved good results, enabling the segmentation of three tumour regions in MRI brain tumour images. Existing models have limited focus on the brain tumour areas, and the long‐term dependency of features is weakened as the network depth increases, resulting in blurred edge segmentation of the targets. Additionally, considering the excellent segmentation performance of the Swin Transformer(Swin‐T) network, its network structure and parameters are relatively large. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a brain tumour segmentation framework with deep nuanced reasoning and Swin‐T. It is mainly composed of the backbone hybrid network (BHN) and the deep micro texture extraction module (DMTE). The BHN combines the Swin‐T stage with a new downsampling transition module called dual path feature reasoning (DPFR). The entire network framework is designed to extract global and local features from multi‐modal data, enabling it to capture and analyze deep texture features in multi‐modal images. It provides significant optimization over the Swin‐T network structure. Experimental results on the BraTS dataset demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms other state‐of‐the‐art models in terms of segmentation performance. The corresponding source codes are available at https://github.com/CurbUni/Brain‐Tumor‐Segmentation‐Framework‐with‐Deep‐Nuanced‐Reasoning‐and‐Swin‐T .

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations50
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Image ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207