MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106295784 · doi:10.57903/uj/c9ns6v

From 2D to 3D: Automated Ultrasound Segmentation and Cross-Sectional Validation in Murine Tumor Models - replication data

2025· dataset· W7106295784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepozytorium Otwartych Danych Badawczych Uczelni Krakowskich - Uniwersytet Jagielloński · 2025
Typedataset
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasoundSegmentationRobustness (evolution)GlioblastomaImage segmentationReplication (statistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dataset comprises B-mode ultrasound images of subcutaneous murine tumors acquired in two preclinical models. Human LN229 glioblastoma multiforme cells were inoculated into the interscapular fat pad of female BALB/c AnN-Foxn1nu/nu/Rj mice, and mouse mammary carcinoma 4T1 cells were inoculated into the mammary fat pad of female BALB/cAnNRj mice (Janvier Labs, Le Genest-Saint-Isle, France). Anatomical B-mode images were acquired using a Vevo F2 ultrasound system with a 25–57 MHz transducer and a Vevo 2100 system with an MS-550D transducer (VisualSonics, Toronto, ON, Canada). All procedures were approved by the Second Local Ethics Committee of Cracow (Permission No. 165/2023 and 250/2020). The original material consisted of (i) individual 2D B-mode images with corresponding expert-drawn tumor masks and (ii) ultrasound videos acquired during freehand examinations, with or without frame-wise annotations. From these videos we extracted individual frames and, where available, the corresponding segmentation contours. The training dataset ultimately used for model development contained 565 images from the first (static-image) source and 2,877 frames extracted from videos; among the latter, 986 frames were provided with tumor masks and 1,891 frames had no mask because either no tumor was visible or the presence of a tumor in that frame was deemed too uncertain by the expert. Images were randomly divided into training, validation, and test subsets for quantitative evaluation. To better characterize model robustness and out-of-distribution behavior, we additionally assembled two curated test resources. First, we selected 10 challenging validation images (e.g. low signal-to-noise ratio, strong contrast heterogeneity within the ROI, or very small tumors) and obtained independent manual segmentations from an expert who was not involved in dataset generation and typically works with different tumor types. Second, we created a “special” testing dataset consisting of 258 masked images from two mice that were not included in the training cohort. For each of these animals, B-mode images were acquired at two time points and in both axial and sagittal planes. In one mouse, LN229 tumors were located directly under the skin rather than in the interscapular fat pad, introducing a tumor location and appearance not represented in the training data. Together, these components provide a diversified benchmark for murine B-mode ultrasound segmentation, spanning multiple tumor models, implantation sites, image qualities, and distribution shifts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepozytorium Otwartych Danych Badawczych Uczelni Krakowskich - Uniwersytet JagiellońskiFrench-language works237,207