MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532695445

Barycentric Label Space

2009· article· en· W1532695445 on OpenAlexaff
Ghassan Hamarneh, Neda Changizi

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBarycentric coordinate systemSmoothingArtificial intelligenceContext (archaeology)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Prior probabilitySpace (punctuation)SegmentationComputer scienceAlgorithmComputer visionBayesian probabilityGeometry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple neighboring organs or structures in medical images are frequently represented by labeling the underlying image (e.g. a brain into WM, GM, CSF). Given the di! erent sources of uncertainties in shape boundaries (e.g. partial volum ee ! ect and fuzzy segmentation), it is favorable to adopt a labeling approach that not only encodes uncer- tainty but also facilitates algebraic label manipulation (e.g. performing PCA). In this work, we extend the label space representation of Mal- colm et al. (1) to barycentric label space, in which a proper invertible mapping between probability vectors and label space is proposed. The probability vectors act as barycentric coe! cients describing arbitrary la- bels in label space and a non-singular matrix inversion maps points in label space back to probabilities. The elimination of conversion errors compared to the original label space mapping is demonstrated quantita- tively and qualitatively on artificial objects and brain image data, and in the context of smoothing, linear statistics, and uncertainty calculation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted InterventionSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207