MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990299000 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2013.2243448

Spine Image Fusion Via Graph Cuts

2013· article· en· W1990299000 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon Miles, Ismail Ben Ayed, Max W. K. Law, Gregory J. Garvin, Aaron Fenster, Shuo Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Image Fusion Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage fusionPixelArtificial intelligenceWaveletGraphMean squared errorFusionComputer scienceCutImage (mathematics)Transparency (behavior)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsImage segmentationTheoretical computer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates a novel CT/MR spine image fusion algorithm based on graph cuts. This algorithm allows physicians to visually assess corresponding soft tissue and bony detail on a single image eliminating mental alignment and correlation needed when both CT and MR images are required for diagnosis. We state the problem as a discrete multilabel optimization of an energy functional that balances the contributions of three competing terms: (1) a squared error, which encourages the solution to be similar to the MR input, with a preference to strong MR edges; (2) a squared error, which encourages the solution to be similar to the CT input, with a preference to strong CT edges; and (3) a prior, which favors smooth solutions by encouraging neighboring pixels to have similar fused-image values. We further introduce a transparency-labeling formulation, which significantly reduces the computational load. The proposed graph-cut fusion guarantees nearly global solutions, while avoiding the pix elation artifacts that affect standard wavelet-based methods. We report several quantitative evaluations/comparisons over 40 pairs of CT/MR images acquired from 20 patients, which demonstrate a very competitive performance in comparisons to the existing methods. We further discuss various case studies, and give a representative sample of the results.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Image Fusion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207