Semi-automatic segmentation of vertebral bodies in volumetric MR images using a statistical shape+pose model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Segmentation of vertebral structures in magnetic resonance (MR) images is challenging because of poor contrast between bone surfaces and surrounding soft tissue. This paper describes a semi-automatic method for segmenting vertebral bodies in multi-slice MR images. In order to achieve a fast and reliable segmentation, the method takes advantage of the correlation between shape and pose of different vertebrae in the same patient by using a statistical multi-vertebrae anatomical shape+pose model. Given a set of MR images of the spine, we initially reduce the intensity inhomogeneity in the images by using an intensity-correction algorithm. Then a 3D anisotropic diffusion filter smooths the images. Afterwards, we extract edges from a relatively small region of the pre-processed image with a simple user interaction. Subsequently, an iterative Expectation Maximization technique is used to register the statistical multi-vertebrae anatomical model to the extracted edge points in order to achieve a fast and reliable segmentation for lumbar vertebral bodies. We evaluate our method in terms of speed and accuracy by applying it to volumetric MR images of the spine acquired from nine patients. Quantitative and visual results demonstrate that the method is promising for segmentation of vertebral bodies in volumetric MR images.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".