MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966120410 · doi:10.1117/1.jei.22.3.033013

Statistical unit root test for edge detection in ultrasound images of vessels and cysts

2013· article· en· W1966120410 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Moradi, S. Sara Mahdavi, Julian Guerrero, Robert Rohling, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronic Imaging · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound Imaging and Elastography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceEdge detectionImage segmentationComputer visionThresholdingComputer scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPattern recognition (psychology)UltrasoundMathematicsImage processingImage (mathematics)Acoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new approach is proposed for edge detection in ultrasound. The technique examines the image intensity profile for unit roots based on the Dickey–Fuller statistical test of stationarity. The existence of the unit root is a sign of nonstationarity and a possible edge. A simple algorithm to build a segmentation method based on this edge detection approach is also proposed, which is capable of delineating the perimeter of hollow structures such as blood vessels and cysts. In this approach, the radial edge profiles originating from the center of the object of interest are scanned for the change from stationary to nonstationary status. The algorithm treats the radial intensity profiles as a time series and uses the Dickey–Fuller statistical test along the radii to find the location at which the profile becomes nonstationary. A priori criteria for edge continuity, shape, and size of the object of interest are applied to enhance the stability of the algorithm. The accuracy is demonstrated on simulated ultrasound. Further, the method is examined on two different image sets of blood vessels and validated based on contours marked by experts. The worst case distance from expert contours is 1.8±0.3 mm . The average area difference between the expert and the extracted contours is ∼6% and ∼4% of the vessel area in the two datasets. The proposed segmentation method is also compared to segmentation using active contours on ultrasound images of breast and ovarian cysts and shown to be accurate and stable.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronic ImagingSame topicUltrasound Imaging and ElastographyFrench-language works237,207