MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406698016 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics15030249

Feasibility Study of Detecting and Segmenting Small Brain Tumors in a Small MRI Dataset with Self-Supervised Learning

2025· article· en· W4406698016 on OpenAlexaff
Weijun Zhang, Wei-Teing Chen, Chien‐Hung Liu, Shiuan-Wen Chen, Yu-Hua Lai, Shingchern D. You

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTransfer of learningMachine learningDiceDeep learningSupervised learningPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkMarket segmentationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: This paper studies the segmentation and detection of small metastatic brain tumors. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of training a deep neural network for the segmentation and detection of metastatic brain tumors in MRI using a very small dataset of 33 cases, by leveraging large public datasets of primary tumors; Methods: This study explores various methods, including supervised learning, two transfer learning approaches, and self-supervised learning, utilizing U-net and Swin UNETR models; Results: The self-supervised learning approach utilizing the Swin UNETR model yielded the best performance. The Dice score for small brain tumors was approximately 0.19. Sensitivity reached 100%, while specificity was 54.5%. When excluding subjects with hyperintensities, the specificity improved to 80.0%; Conclusions: It is feasible to train a model using self-supervised learning and a small dataset for the segmentation and detection of small brain tumors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207