MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990994043 · doi:10.1118/1.2409238

Subvoxel precise skeletons of volumetric data based on fast marching methods

2007· article· en· W1990994043 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Van Uitert, Ingmar Bitter

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsTerahertz Technology Solutions (Canada)
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsVoxelComputer scienceSkeletonizationSmoothingArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRepresentation (politics)Field (mathematics)AlgorithmFast marching methodObject (grammar)Distance transformMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate calculation of the skeleton of an object is a problem not satisfactorily solved by existing approaches. Most algorithms require a significant amount of user interaction and use a voxel grid to compute discrete and often coarse approximations of this representation of the data. We present a novel, automatic algorithm for computing subvoxel precise skeletons of volumetric data based on subvoxel precise distance fields. Most voxel based centerline and skeleton algorithms start with a binary mask and end with a list of voxels that define the centerline or skeleton. Even though subsequent smoothing may be applied, the results are inherently discrete. Our skeletonization algorithm uses as input a subvoxel precise distance field and employs a number of fast marching method propagations to extract the skeleton at subvoxel precision. We present the skeletons of various three-dimensional (3D) data sets and digital phantom models as validations of our algorithm.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations123
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207