MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984334616 · doi:10.1117/12.710434

DT-MRI segmentation using graph cuts

2007· article· en· W1984334616 on OpenAlexaff
Yonas T. Weldeselassie, Ghassan Hamarneh

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDiffusion MRISegmentationVoxelArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)CutGraphComputer scienceTensor (intrinsic definition)Computer visionScale-space segmentationMathematicsMagnetic resonance imagingTheoretical computer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important problem in medical image analysis is the segmentation of anatomical regions of interest. Once regions of interest are segmented, one can extract shape, appearance, and structural features that can be analyzed for disease diagnosis or treatment evaluation. Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI) is a relatively new medical imaging modality that captures unique water diffusion properties and fiber orientation information of the imaged tissues. In this paper, we extend the interactive multidimensional graph cuts segmentation technique to operate on DT-MRI data by utilizing latest advances in tensor calculus and diffusion tensor dissimilarity metrics. The user interactively selects certain tensors as object ("obj") or background ("bkg") to provide hard constraints for the segmentation. Additional soft constraints incorporate information about both regional tissue diffusion as well as boundaries between tissues of different diffusion properties. Graph cuts are used to find globally optimal segmentation of the underlying 3D DT-MR image among all segmentations satisfying the constraints. We develop a graph structure from the underlying DT-MR image with the tensor voxels corresponding to the graph vertices and with graph edge weights computed using either Log-Euclidean or the J-divergence tensor dissimilarity metric. The topology of our segmentation is unrestricted and both obj and bkg segments may consist of several isolated parts. We test our method on synthetic DT data and apply it to real 2D and 3D MRI, providing segmentations of the corpus callosum in the brain and the ventricles of the heart.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207