Automatic segmentation of spinal cord lesions in MS: A robust tool for axial T2-weighted MRI scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Deep learning models have achieved remarkable success in segmenting brain white matter lesions in multiple sclerosis (MS), becoming integral to both research and clinical workflows. While brain lesions have gained significant attention in MS research, the involvement of spinal cord lesions in MS is relatively understudied. This is largely owed to the variability in spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition protocols, high individual anatomical differences, the complex morphology and size of spinal cord lesions - and lastly, the scarcity of labeled datasets required to develop robust segmentation tools. As a result, automatic segmentation of spinal cord MS lesions remains a significant challenge. Although some segmentation tools exist for spinal cord lesions, most have been developed using sagittal T2-weighted (T2w) sequences primarily focusing on cervical spines. With the growing importance of spinal cord imaging in MS, axial T2w scans are becoming increasingly relevant due to their superior sensitivity in detecting lesions compared to sagittal acquisition protocols. However, most existing segmentation methods struggle to effectively generalize to axial sequences due to differences in image characteristics caused by the highly anisotropic spinal cord scans. To address these challenges, we developed a robust, open-source lesion segmentation tool tailored specifically for axial T2w scans covering the whole spinal cord. We investigated key factors influencing lesion segmentation, including the impact of stitching together individually acquired spinal regions, straightening the spinal cord, and comparing the effectiveness of 2D and 3D convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Drawing on these insights, we trained a multi-center model using an extensive dataset of 582 MS patients, resulting in a dataset comprising an entirety of 2,167 scans. We empirically evaluated the model’s segmentation performance across various spinal segments for lesions with varying sizes. Our model significantly outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods, providing consistent segmentation across cervical, thoracic and lumbar regions. To support the broader research community, we integrate our model into the widely-used Spinal Cord Toolbox (v7.0 and above), making it accessible via the command sct deepseg -task seg sc ms lesion axial t2w -i <path-to-image.nii.gz> .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".