Towards an accurate and robust method based on fuzzy logic principles for the reconstruction and quantification of large volumes from MR and CT images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors have previously evaluated a new method of volume reconstruction and quantification from MR images, based on fuzzy logic (FL) principles. The technique is evaluated here for larger and more complex structures by investigating its accuracy and robustness using MR and CT images. Four large (50-71 cm(3)) and complex (e.g. mimicking a prostate) structures were created and imaged on MR and CT scanners, both with increasing slice thickness. Contours were delineated to generate 112 volumes. MR and CT images were processed using the FL method and a "classical" method of reconstruction on research software. In addition, the CT images were also processed on commercial virtual simulation software. Calculated volumes were compared with actual volumes. The mean +/- standard deviation of the relative variations in calculated target volume using the FL method was found to be 4.4%+/-2.8%, whereas with the "classical" method it was 23.7%+/-6% from axial MR images and 23.3%+/-9.8% from CT images. With the "classical" method, the relative variations in calculated volumes rise with increasing slice thickness, and the displayed volumes show deformations in the longitudinal direction. With the FL method, the volume calculation is not sensitive to the slice thickness and so the deformations are minimal. When used with MR images, our FL method of volume reconstruction is accurate and robust with respect to changes in slice thickness. For CT images, the results are encouraging but some work is still needed to improve the accuracy of the FL method.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".