MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Brain MRI Tumour Localization and Segmentation Through Deep Learning

2024· article· en· W4402727375 on OpenAlexaff
Somayeh Davar, Thomas Fevens

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceDeep learningImage segmentationMagnetic resonance imagingComputer visionRadiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The segmentation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important task in medical imaging, particularly for brain MRIs, where accurate segmentation of anatomical structures, often challenged by uneven shapes and fuzzy boundaries of tumours, is difficult to achieve. Thus, automating reliable segmentation of the region of interest (ROI) is essential in medical imaging. This work introduces an automated approach for brain tumour segmentation, leveraging a Deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with a focus on effectively segmenting brain tumours within T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) images. The proposed method is first performed on the classified images to localize the tumour regions of interest(ROIs). In the next stage, the algorithm contours the concentrated tumour boundary for the segmentation process, which contains the network and attention module, both spatial and channel. To evaluate the overall system's performance, precision, recall, Jaccard index, and dice similarity coefficient (DSC) were calculated, where we achieved 0.8757, 0.8804, 0.8624, and 0.8995, respectively. Our approach demonstrates promising results compared to previous methods using the same database.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207