EPISeg: Automated segmentation of the spinal cord on echo planar images using open-access multi-center data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the spinal cord is relevant for studying sensation, movement, and autonomic function. Preprocessing of spinal cord fMRI data involves segmentation of the spinal cord on gradient-echo echo planar imaging (EPI) images. Current automated segmentation methods do not work well on these data, due to the low spatial resolution, susceptibility artifacts causing distortions and signal drop-out, ghosting, and motion-related artifacts. Consequently, this segmentation task demands a considerable amount of manual effort which takes time and is prone to user bias. In this work, we (i) gathered a multi-center dataset of spinal cord gradient-echo EPI with ground-truth segmentations and shared it on OpenNeuro https://openneuro.org/datasets/ds005143/versions/1.3.1 and (ii) developed a deep learning-based model, EPISeg, for the automatic segmentation of the spinal cord on gradient-echo EPI data. We observe a significant improvement in terms of segmentation quality compared with other available spinal cord segmentation models. Our model is resilient to different acquisition protocols as well as commonly observed artifacts in fMRI data. The training code is available at https://github.com/sct-pipeline/fmri-segmentation/, and the model has been integrated into the Spinal Cord Toolbox as a command-line tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".