MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395455684 · doi:10.1142/s1469026824500081

A Hybrid Method for Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Segmentation Using Wavelet and Dense U-Net

2024· article· en· W4395455684 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Alijamaat, Seyed Mohsen Mirhosseini, Reyhaneh Aliakbari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)WaveletDeep learningLesionImage segmentationComputer visionMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is one of the debilitating disorders of the central nervous system. This disease causes lesions in the white matter of the brain tissue. It can also lead to many physical and psychological disorders in movement, vision, and memory. Lesion segmentation in MRI images to determine the number and size of lesions is one of the diagnostic problems for specialists. Using automated diagnostic tools as an aid can help professionals. Traditional image processing and deep learning methods are used to automate lesion segmentation. The U-Net is one of the most widely used deep learning architectures for MS lesion segmentation. The images are used in the Fourier domain in the U-Net network, which does not include all its features. Our proposed method combines the HAR wavelet transform and the Dense net-based U-Net. This makes local features and lesions of different sizes more prominent and leads to higher quality segmentation. The proposed method had a better Dice value than the compared methods in the experiments.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Intelligence and ApplicationsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207