MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986809342 · doi:10.1109/prni.2014.6858519

Improved method for automatic cerebrovascular labelling using stochastic tunnelling

2014· article· en· W1986809342 on OpenAlexaff
Sahar Ghanavati, Jason P. Lerch, John G. Sled

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabellingSimulated annealingComputer scienceGraphArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionQuantum tunnellingComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The complexity and high morphological variation of cerebral vasculature make comparison and analysis of the vessel patterning difficult and laborious. A framework for automatic labelling of the cerebral vessels in high resolution 3D images has been introduced in the literature that addresses this need. The segmented vasculature is represented as an attributed relational graph. Each vessel segment is an edge in the graph with local attributes such as diameter and length, as well as relational features representing the connectivity of the vessel segments. Each edge in the graph is automatically labelled with an anatomical name through a stochastic relaxation algorithm. In this paper, we compare the performance of four different optimization schemes, including stochastic tunnelling, for automatic labelling. We validated our method on 7 micro-CT images of C57Bl/6J mice with a leave-one-out test. The mean recognition rate of complete cerebrovasculature using stochastic tunnelling is 80% and shows a 2% (>60 vessel segments) improvement compared to simulated annealing optimization.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207