Semiautomatic three-dimensional segmentation of the prostate using two-dimensional ultrasound images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we report on two methods for semiautomatic three-dimensional (3-D) prostate boundary segmentation using 2-D ultrasound images. For each method, a 3-D ultrasound prostate image was sliced into the series of contiguous 2-D images, either in a parallel manner, with a uniform slice spacing of 1 mm, or in a rotational manner, about an axis approximately through the center of the prostate, with a uniform angular spacing of 5 degrees. The segmentation process was initiated by manually placing four points on the boundary of a selected slice, from which an initial prostate boundary was determined. This initial boundary was refined using the Discrete Dynamic Contour until it fit the actual prostate boundary. The remaining slices were then segmented by iteratively propagating this result to an adjacent slice and repeating the refinement, pausing the process when necessary to manually edit the boundary. The two methods were tested with six 3-D prostate images. The results showed that the parallel and rotational methods had mean editing rates of 20% and 14%, and mean (mean absolute) volume errors of -5.4% (6.5%) and -1.7% (3.1%), respectively. Based on these results, as well as the relative difficulty in editing, we conclude that the rotational segmentation method is superior.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".