MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407642482 · doi:10.3390/applbiosci4010011

SALM: A Unified Model for 2D and 3D Region of Interest Segmentation in Lung CT Scans Using Vision Transformers

2025· article· en· W4407642482 on OpenAlexafffund
Hadrien T. Gayap, Moulay A. Akhloufi

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Biosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsSegmentationTransformerComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceEngineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate segmentation of Regions of Interest (ROI) in lung Computed Tomography (CT) is crucial for early lung cancer diagnosis and treatment planning. However, the variability in size, shape, and location of lung lesions, along with the complexity of 3D spatial relationships, poses significant challenges. In this work, we propose SALM (Segment Anything in Lung Model), a deep learning model for 2D and 3D ROI segmentation. SALM leverages Vision Transformers, proposing an adaptation of positional encoding functions to effectively capture spatial relationships in both 2D slices and 3D volumes using a single, unified model. Evaluation on the LUNA16 dataset demonstrated strong performance in both modalities. In 2D segmentation, SALM achieved a Dice score of 93% on 124,662 slices. For 3D segmentation using 174 3D images from the same dataset, SALM attained a Dice score of 81.88%. We also tested SALM on an external database (PleThora) on a subset of 255 pulmonary CT from diseased patients, where it achieved a Dice score of 78.82%. These results highlight SALM’s ability to accurately segment lung ROI in both 2D and 3D, demonstrating its potential to improve the accuracy and efficiency of computer-aided diagnosis for lung cancer.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied BiosciencesSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207