MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399951672 · doi:10.1136/jnis-2024-021782

Two-stage convolutional neural network for segmentation and detection of carotid web on CT angiography

2024· article· en· W4399951672 on OpenAlexaff
Hulin Kuang, Xianzhen Tan, Fouzi Bala, Jialiang Huang, Jianhai Zhang, Ibrahim Alhabli, Faysal Benali, Nishita Singh, Aravind Ganesh, Shelagh B. Coutts, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Mayank Goyal, Michael D. Hill, Wu Qiu, Bijoy K. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarotid arteriesStroke (engine)SegmentationStage (stratigraphy)PercentileRadiologyArtificial intelligenceCardiologyStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Carotid web (CaW) is a risk factor for ischemic stroke, mainly in young patients with stroke of undetermined etiology. Its detection is challenging, especially among non-experienced physicians. METHODS: We included patients with CaW from six international trials and registries of patients with acute ischemic stroke. Identification and manual segmentations of CaW were performed by three trained radiologists. We designed a two-stage segmentation strategy based on a convolutional neural network (CNN). At the first stage, the two carotid arteries were segmented using a U-shaped CNN. At the second stage, the segmentation of the CaW was first confined to the vicinity of the carotid arteries. Then, the carotid bifurcation region was localized by the proposed carotid bifurcation localization algorithm followed by another U-shaped CNN. A volume threshold based on the derived CaW manual segmentation statistics was then used to determine whether or not CaW was present. RESULTS: , binary classification detection metrics for CaW on a single artery were as follows: accuracy: 92.2% (95% CI 87.93% to 96.55%), precision: 94.83% (95% CI 88.68% to 100.00%), sensitivity: 90.16% (95% CI 82.16% to 96.97%), specificity: 94.55% (95% CI 88.0% to 100.0%), F1 measure: 0.9244 (95% CI 0.8679 to 0.9692), area under the curve: 0.9235 (95%CI 0.8726 to 0.9688). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed two-stage method enables reliable segmentation and detection of CaW from head and neck CT angiography.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroInterventional SurgerySame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207