MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979711637 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2010.2055884

Image-Based Variational Meshing

2010· article· en· W1979711637 on OpenAlexaff
Orçun Göksel, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodMesh generationComputer scienceInterpolation (computer graphics)SegmentationTetrahedronRendering (computer graphics)AlgorithmImage segmentationFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionGeometryMathematicsImage (mathematics)Structural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In medical simulations involving tissue deformation, the finite element method (FEM) is a widely used technique, where the size, shape, and placement of the elements in a model are important factors that affect the interpolation and numerical errors of a solution. Conventional model generation schemes for FEM consist of a segmentation step delineating the anatomy followed by a meshing step generating elements conforming to this segmentation. In this paper, a single-step model generation technique is proposed based on optimization. Starting from an initial mesh covering the domain of interest, the mesh nodes are adjusted to minimize an objective function which penalizes intra-element intensity variations and poor element geometry for the entire mesh. Trade-offs between mesh geometry quality and intra-element variance are achieved by adjusting the relative weights of the geometric and intensity variation components of the cost function. This meshing approach enables a more accurate rendering of shapes with fewer elements and provides more accurate models for deformation simulation, especially when the image intensities represent a mechanical feature of the tissue such as the elastic modulus. The use of the proposed mesh optimization is demonstrated in 2-D and 3-D on synthetic phantoms, MR images of the brain, and CT images of the kidney. A comparison with previous meshing techniques that do not account for image intensity is also provided demonstrating the benefits of our approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207