Patient‐specific anisotropic model of human trunk based on MR data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many ways to generate geometrical models for numerical simulation, and most of them start with a segmentation step to extract the boundaries of the regions of interest. This paper presents an algorithm to generate a patient-specific three-dimensional geometric model, based on a tetrahedral mesh, without an initial extraction of contours from the volumetric data. Using the information directly available in the data, such as gray levels, we built a metric to drive a mesh adaptation process. The metric is used to specify the size and orientation of the tetrahedral elements everywhere in the mesh. Our method, which produces anisotropic meshes, gives good results with synthetic and real MRI data. The resulting model quality has been evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively by comparing it with an analytical solution and with a segmentation made by an expert. Results show that our method gives, in 90% of the cases, as good or better meshes as a similar isotropic method, based on the accuracy of the volume reconstruction for a given mesh size. Moreover, a comparison of the Hausdorff distances between adapted meshes of both methods and ground-truth volumes shows that our method decreases reconstruction errors faster.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".