Towards contrast-agnostic soft segmentation of the spinal cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spinal cord segmentation is clinically relevant and is notably used to compute spinal cord cross-sectional area (CSA) for the diagnosis and monitoring of cord compression or neurodegenerative diseases such as multiple sclerosis. While several semi and automatic methods exist, one key limitation remains: the segmentation depends on the MRI contrast, resulting in different CSA across contrasts. This is partly due to the varying appearance of the boundary between the spinal cord and the cerebrospinal fluid that depends on the sequence and acquisition parameters. This contrast-sensitive CSA adds variability in multi-center studies where protocols can vary, reducing the sensitivity to detect subtle atrophies. Moreover, existing methods enhance the CSA variability by training one model per contrast, while also producing binary masks that do not account for partial volume effects. In this work, we present a deep learning-based method that produces soft segmentations of the spinal cord that are stable across MRI contrasts. Using the Spine Generic Public Database of healthy participants (n=267; contrasts=6), we first generated participant-wise soft ground truth (GT) by averaging the binary segmentations across all 6 contrasts. These soft GT, along with aggressive data augmentation and a regression-based loss function, were then used to train a U-Net model for spinal cord segmentation. We evaluated our model against state-of-the-art methods and performed ablation studies involving different GT mask types, loss functions, contrast-specific models and domain generalization methods. Our results show that using the soft average segmentations along with a regression loss function reduces CSA variability (p<0.05, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The proposed spinal cord segmentation model generalizes better than the state-of-the-art contrast-specific methods amongst unseen datasets, vendors, contrasts, and pathologies (compression, lesions), while accounting for partial volume effects. Our model is integrated into the Spinal Cord Toolbox (v6.2 and higher).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".