Deep Learning Algorithms for Bladder Cancer Segmentation on Multi-Parametric MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer (BC) segmentation on MRI images is the first step to determining the presence of muscular invasion. This study aimed to assess the tumor segmentation performance of three deep learning (DL) models on multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) images. METHODS: We studied 53 patients with bladder cancer. Bladder tumors were segmented on each slice of T2-weighted (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging/apparent diffusion coefficient (DWI/ADC), and T1-weighted contrast-enhanced (T1WI) images acquired at a 3Tesla MRI scanner. We trained Unet, MAnet, and PSPnet using three loss functions: cross-entropy (CE), dice similarity coefficient loss (DSC), and focal loss (FL). We evaluated the model performances using DSC, Hausdorff distance (HD), and expected calibration error (ECE). RESULTS: The MAnet algorithm with the CE+DSC loss function gave the highest DSC values on the ADC, T2WI, and T1WI images. PSPnet with CE+DSC obtained the smallest HDs on the ADC, T2WI, and T1WI images. The segmentation accuracy overall was better on the ADC and T1WI than on the T2WI. The ECEs were the smallest for PSPnet with FL on the ADC images, while they were the smallest for MAnet with CE+DSC on the T2WI and T1WI. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to Unet, MAnet and PSPnet with a hybrid CE+DSC loss function displayed better performances in BC segmentation depending on the choice of the evaluation metric.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".