EPISeg: Automated segmentation of the spinal cord on echo planar images using open-access multi-center data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it