MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536437679

Experimental Analysis of the MRF Algorithm for Segmentation of Noisy Medical Images

2011· article· en· W1536437679 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgorithmic operations research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationImage segmentationComputer visionToolboxMarket segmentationImage (mathematics)Noise reductionMedical imagingPattern recognition (psychology)Scale-space segmentationMarkov random field
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show here that the implementation of the Markov random fields image segmentation algorithm of Hochbaum 2001 works well for the purpose of denoising and segmenting medical images. One of the main contributions here is the ability for a user to manipulate online the image so as to achieve clear delineation of objects of interest in the image. This is made possible by the efficiency of the implementation. Results are presented for images that are generated by Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The results show that the method presented is effective at denoising medical images as well as segmenting tissue types, organs, lesions, and other features within medical images. We advocate that this method should be considered as part of the medical imaging toolbox.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.332 · 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