An Evaluation of Depth Enhancing Perceptual Cues for Vascular Volume Visualization in Neurosurgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cerebral vascular images obtained through angiography are used by neurosurgeons for diagnosis, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance. The intricate branching of the vessels and furcations, however, make the task of understanding the spatial three-dimensional layout of these images challenging. In this paper, we present empirical studies on the effect of different perceptual cues (fog, pseudo-chromadepth, kinetic depth, and depicting edges) both individually and in combination on the depth perception of cerebral vascular volumes and compare these to the cue of stereopsis. Two experiments with novices and one experiment with experts were performed. The results with novices showed that the pseudo-chromadepth and fog cues were stronger cues than that of stereopsis. Furthermore, the addition of the stereopsis cue to the other cues did not improve relative depth perception in cerebral vascular volumes. In contrast to novices, the experts also performed well with the edge cue. In terms of both novice and expert subjects, pseudo-chromadepth and fog allow for the best relative depth perception. By using such cues to improve depth perception of cerebral vasculature, we may improve diagnosis, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it