MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411849571 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-06741-z

Generative AI for weakly supervised segmentation and downstream classification of brain tumors on MR images

2025· article· en· W4411849571 on OpenAlexafffund
Jay J. Yoo, Khashayar Namdar, Matthias Wagner, Kristen W. Yeom, Liana Nobre, Uri Tabori, Cynthia Hawkins, Birgit Ertl‐Wagner, Farzad Khalvati

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of AlbertaVector InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Generative grammarMagnetic resonance imagingNatural language processingMedicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmenting abnormalities is a leading problem in medical imaging. Using machine learning for segmentation generally requires manually annotated segmentations, demanding extensive time and resources from radiologists. We propose a weakly supervised approach that utilizes binary image-level labels, which are much simpler to acquire, rather than manual annotations to segment brain tumors on magnetic resonance images. The proposed method generates healthy variants of cancerous images for use as priors when training the segmentation model. However, using weakly supervised segmentations for downstream tasks such as classification can be challenging due to occasional unreliable segmentations. To address this, we propose using the generated non-cancerous variants to identify the most effective segmentations without requiring ground truths. Our proposed method generates segmentations that achieve Dice coefficients of 79.27% on the Multimodal Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) 2020 dataset and 73.58% on an internal dataset of pediatric low-grade glioma (pLGG), which increase to 88.69% and 80.29%, respectively, when removing suboptimal segmentations identified using the proposed method. Using the segmentations for tumor classification results with Area Under the Characteristic Operating Curve (AUC) of 93.54% and 83.74% on the BraTS and pLGG datasets, respectively. These are comparable to using manual annotations which achieve AUCs of 95.80% and 83.03% on the BraTS and pLGG datasets, respectively.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207