A domain adaptation benchmark for T1-weighted brain magnetic resonance image segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate brain segmentation is critical for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis pipelines. Machine-learning-based brain MR image segmentation methods are among the state-of-the-art techniques for this task. Nevertheless, the segmentations produced by machine learning models often degrade in the presence of expected domain shifts between the test and train sets data distributions. These domain shifts are expected due to several factors, such as scanner hardware and software differences, technology updates, and differences in MRI acquisition parameters. Domain adaptation (DA) methods can make machine learning models more resilient to these domain shifts. This paper proposes a benchmark for investigating DA techniques for brain MR image segmentation using data collected across sites with scanners from different vendors (Philips, Siemens, and General Electric). Our work provides labeled data, publicly available source code for a set of baseline and DA models, and a benchmark for assessing different brain MR image segmentation techniques. We applied the proposed benchmark to evaluate two segmentation tasks: skull-stripping; and white-matter, gray-matter, and cerebrospinal fluid segmentation, but the benchmark can be extended to other brain structures. Our main findings during the development of this benchmark are that there is not a single DA technique that consistently outperforms others, and hyperparameter tuning and computational times for these methods still pose a challenge before broader adoption of these methods in the clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".