MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Multi-Step Algorithm for Measuring Airway Luminal Diameter and Wall Thickness in Lung CT Images

2014· article· en· W1994262462 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Heydarian, Michael D. Noseworthy, Markad V. Kamath, Colm Boylan, W.F.S. Poehlman

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayLumen (anatomy)Imaging phantomLungBiomedical engineeringComputed tomographyTomographyMedicineAlgorithmComputer scienceRadiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate measurements of airway diameter and wall thickness are important parameters in understanding numerous pulmonary diseases. Here, we describe an automated method of measuring small airway luminal diameter and wall thickness over numerous contiguous computed tomography (CT) images. Using CT lung images from 22 patients and an airway phantom, a seeded region-growing algorithm was first applied to identify the lumen of the airway. The result was applied as an initial region for boundary determination using the level set method. Once found, subsequent algorithmic expansion of the luminal border was used to calculate airway wall thickness. This algorithm automatically evaluates neighboring slices of the airway and measures the airway luminal diameter and wall thickness. This approach also detects airway bifurcations. Our new procedure provides rapid, automated, accurate, and clinically important lung airway measurements that would be useful to radiologists who use CT images for pulmonary disease assessment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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 venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207