3D active shape models of human brain structures: application to patient-specific mesh generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of biomechanics-based numerical simulations has attracted growing interest in recent years for computer-aided diagnosis and treatment planning. With this in mind, a method for automatic mesh generation of brain structures of interest, using statistical models of shape (SSM) and appearance (SAM), for personalised computational modelling is presented. SSMs are constructed as point distribution models (PDMs) while SAMs are trained using intensity profiles sampled from a training set of T1-weighted magnetic resonance images. The brain structures of interest are, the cortical surface (cerebrum, cerebellum & brainstem), lateral ventricles and falx-cerebri membrane. Two methods for establishing correspondences across the training set of shapes are investigated and compared (based on SSM quality): the Coherent Point Drift (CPD) point-set registration method and B-spline mesh-to-mesh registration method. The MNI-305 (Montreal Neurological Institute) average brain atlas is used to generate the template mesh, which is deformed and registered to each training case, to establish correspondence over the training set of shapes. 18 healthy patients’ T1-weightedMRimages form the training set used to generate the SSM and SAM. Both model-training and model-fitting are performed over multiple brain structures simultaneously. Compactness and generalisation errors of the BSpline-SSM and CPD-SSM are evaluated and used to quantitatively compare the SSMs. Leave-one-out cross validation is used to evaluate SSM quality in terms of these measures. The mesh-based SSM is found to generalise better and is more compact, relative to the CPD-based SSM. Quality of the best-fit model instance from the trained SSMs, to test cases are evaluated using the Hausdorff distance (HD) and mean absolute surface distance (MASD) metrics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".