MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Organ Proximity Analysis: A Novel Approach to Spleen Localization for Accurate Injury Grading in Abdominal CT Scans

2024· article· en· W4401751277 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hamghalam, Robert B. Moreland, David Gómez, Hui Ming Lin, Ali Babaei Jandaghi, Mónica Tafur, Paraskevi A. Vlachou, Matthew Wu, Michael Brassil, Priscila Crivellaro, Shobhit Mathur, Shahob Hosseinpour, Errol Colak, Amber L. Simpson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt Joseph's Health CareWestern UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalQueen's University
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Health
KeywordsGrading (engineering)Computer scienceRadiologyArtificial intelligenceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate grading of splenic injuries in abdominal CT scans is paramount for diagnosing and treating abdominal trauma. However, automating the segmentation of an injured spleen is a formidable task, given the numerous anomalies like shape, location, texture, and size variations. Deep neural networks often require extensive and expensive annotated datasets to achieve precise spleen segmentation. This paper presents a novel approach that integrates segmentation and localization techniques for spleen analysis. Initially, we segment the spleen using a segmentation model trained on limited normal spleen data. We then employ a localization decision-making process to determine whether the segmented spleen exhibits an out-of-distribution shape and location. If not, we utilize the segmentation map for cropping. In cases where the spleen displays atypical features, we leverage information from nearby organs to accurately locate the spleen. The cropped spleen is then processed through a 3D DenseNet, a deep convolutional network, for spleen classification, categorizing the injuries into normal, low (grades I to III) and high (grades IV & V) grade injuries following the American association for the surgery of trauma injury scoring scale. This innovative approach not only achieves accuracy levels comparable to segmentation-based methods but also reduces dependence on extensive annotated datasets, making it a noteworthy contribution to abdominal trauma diagnosis and treatment. Code https://github.com/hamghalam/Proximity-Analysis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207