MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408201618 · doi:10.3390/app15052830

Models to Identify Small Brain White Matter Hyperintensity Lesions

2025· article· en· W4408201618 on OpenAlexaff
Darwin Castillo, María José Rodríguez-Álvarez, René Samaniego, Vasudevan Lakshminarayanan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperintensitySegmentationContext (archaeology)White matterMedicineArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Radiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), peripheral and central neurological disorders affect approximately one billion people worldwide. Ischemic stroke and Alzheimer’s Disease and other dementias are the second and fifth leading causes of death, respectively. In this context, detecting and classifying brain lesions constitute a critical area of research in medical image processing, significantly impacting clinical practice. Traditional lesion detection, segmentation, and feature extraction methods are time-consuming and observer-dependent. In this sense, research in the machine and deep learning methods applied to medical image processing constitute one of the crucial tools for automatically learning hierarchical features to get better accuracy, quick diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of diseases. This project aims to develop and implement deep learning models for detecting and classifying small brain White Matter hyperintensities (WMH) lesions in magnetic resonance images (MRI), specifically lesions concerning ischemic and demyelination diseases. The methods applied were the UNet and Segmenting Anything model (SAM) for segmentation, while YOLOV8 and Detectron2 (based on MaskRCNN) were also applied to detect and classify the lesions. Experimental results show a Dice coefficient (DSC) of 0.94, 0.50, 0.241, and 0.88 for segmentation of WMH lesions using the UNet, SAM, YOLOv8, and Detectron2, respectively. The Detectron2 model demonstrated an accuracy of 0.94 in detecting and 0.98 in classifying lesions, including small lesions where other models often fail. The methods developed give an outline for the detection, segmentation, and classification of small and irregular morphology brain lesions and could significantly aid clinical diagnostics, providing reliable support for physicians and improving patient outcomes.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207