MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interactive Cascaded Network for Prostate Cancer Segmentation from Multimodality MRI with Automated Quality Assessment

2024· article· en· W4401357274 on OpenAlexaff
Weixuan Kou, Cristian Rey, Harry Marshall, Bernard Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueBioengineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWestern University
FundersCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWorkflowScale-space segmentationRobustness (evolution)Image segmentationComputer visionAnnotationPattern recognition (psychology)Database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate segmentation of prostate cancer (PCa) from multiparametric MRI is crucial in clinical practice for guiding biopsy and treatment planning. Existing automated methods often lack the necessary accuracy and robustness in localizing PCa, whereas interactive segmentation methods, although more accurate, require user intervention on each input image, thereby limiting the cost-effectiveness of the segmentation workflow. Our innovative framework addresses the limitations of current methods by combining a coarse segmentation network, a rejection network, and an interactive deep network known as Segment Anything Model (SAM). The coarse segmentation network automatically generates initial segmentation results, which are evaluated by the rejection network to estimate their quality. Low-quality results are flagged for user interaction, with the user providing a region of interest (ROI) enclosing the lesions, whereas for high-quality results, ROIs were cropped from the automatic segmentation. Both manually and automatically defined ROIs are fed into SAM to produce the final fine segmentation. This approach significantly reduces the annotation burden and achieves substantial improvements by flagging approximately 20% of the images with the lowest quality scores for manual annotation. With only half of the images manually annotated, the final segmentation accuracy is statistically indistinguishable from that achieved using full manual annotation. Although this paper focuses on prostate lesion segmentation from multimodality MRI, the framework can be adapted to other medical image segmentation applications to improve segmentation efficiency while maintaining high accuracy standards.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioengineeringSame topicProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207