Automated brain tumor segmentation with deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate tumor delineation is crucial for effective diagnosis, treatment planning and risk factor identification. This study presents an advanced Deep Learning (DL) framework designed for the precise segmentation of brain tumors and reliable survival prediction for tumor patients. In this work, a cutting-edge approach that leverages an ensemble strategy, combining two distinct 3D UNet architectures (3D U-Net and Attention 3D U-Net) is incorporated for segmentation purpose. This ensemble approach employs a majority rule mechanism and ensures a more reliable and comprehensive delineation of tumor regions. The proposed system's effectiveness and performance are evaluated using BraTS 2018 dataset. The proposed deep learning network trained and validated for brain tumor segmentation achieved promising results on the online final dataset, as evidenced by the Dice coefficient and Hausdorff metric scores. Specifically, the performance metrics for different tumor regions were as follows: Enhancing Tumor (ET), 0.805 Dice Score and Hausdorff Distance about 2.779. For Tumor Core (TC), its about 0.851 and 6.378 and for Necoratic core 0.904 and 6.323.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".