MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986399714 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2015.2403299

The Generalized Log-Ratio Transformation: Learning Shape and Adjacency Priors for Simultaneous Thigh Muscle Segmentation

2015· article· en· W1986399714 on OpenAlexaff
Shawn Andrews, Ghassan Hamarneh

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBody Composition Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceAdjacency listSørensen–Dice coefficientComputer visionProbabilistic logicActive shape modelImage segmentationAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel probabilistic shape representation that implicitly includes prior anatomical volume and adjacency information, termed the generalized log-ratio (GLR) representation. We demonstrate the usefulness of this representation in the task of thigh muscle segmentation. Analysis of the shapes and sizes of thigh muscles can lead to a better understanding of the effects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which often results in skeletal muscle weakness in lower limbs. However, segmenting these muscles from one another is difficult due to a lack of distinctive features and inter-muscular boundaries that are difficult to detect. We overcome these difficulties by building a shape model in the space of GLR representations. We remove pose variability from the model by employing a presegmentation-based alignment scheme. We also design a rotationally invariant random forest boundary detector that learns common appearances of the interface between muscles from training data. We combine the shape model and the boundary detector into a fully automatic globally optimal segmentation technique. Our segmentation technique produces a probabilistic segmentation that can be used to generate uncertainty information, which can be used to aid subsequent analysis. Our experiments on challenging 3D magnetic resonance imaging data sets show that the use of the GLR representation improves the segmentation accuracy, and yields an average Dice similarity coefficient of 0.808 ±0.074, comparable to other state-of-the-art thigh segmentation techniques.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations51
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicBody Composition Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207