Comparative Analysis of Foundational, Advanced, and Traditional Deep Learning Models for Hyperpolarized Gas MRI Lung Segmentation: Robust Performance in Data-Constrained Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the comparative performance of foundational models, advanced large-kernel architectures, and traditional deep learning approaches for hyperpolarized gas MRI segmentation across progressive data reduction scenarios. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a leading global health concern, and advanced imaging techniques are crucial for its diagnosis and management. Hyperpolarized gas MRI, utilizing helium-3 (3He) and xenon-129 (129Xe), offers a non-invasive way to assess lung function. We evaluated foundational models (Segment Anything Model and MedSAM), advanced architectures (UniRepLKNet and TransXNet), and traditional deep learning models (UNet with VGG19 backbone, Feature Pyramid Network with MIT-B5 backbone, and DeepLabV3 with ResNet152 backbone) using four data availability scenarios: 100%, 50%, 25%, and 10% of the full training dataset (1640 2D MRI slices from 205 participants). The results demonstrate that foundational and advanced models achieve statistically equivalent performance across all data scenarios (p > 0.01), while both significantly outperform traditional architectures under data constraints (p < 0.001). Under extreme data scarcity (10% training data), foundational and advanced models maintained DSC values above 0.86, while traditional models experienced catastrophic performance collapse. This work highlights the critical advantage of architectures with large effective receptive fields in medical imaging applications where data collection is challenging, demonstrating their potential to democratize advanced medical imaging analysis in resource-limited settings.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".