MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998018644 · doi:10.1080/10255840902802891

A systematic approach to feature tracking of lumbar spine vertebrae from fluoroscopic images using complex-valued wavelets

2009· article· en· W1998018644 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Wong, Nadine M. Dunk, Jack P. Callaghan

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionWaveletSagittal planeComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Rotation (mathematics)Affine transformationTracking (education)FluoroscopyMathematicsMedicineAnatomyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a systematic approach to lumbar spine vertebrae tracking in fluoroscopic images using complex-valued wavelets. The proposed algorithm is designed specifically based on a set of performance criteria associated with the detection and tracking of feature points in lumbar spine vertebrae from fluoroscopic images. The algorithm handles contrast and illumination non-homogeneities and noise in fluoroscopic images through the use of local phase information obtained using complex-valued wavelets. The algorithm is capable of tracking feature points that undergo various geometric deformations caused during the fluoroscopic imaging process by defining a descriptor that is invariant to scale and rotation and robust to affine, projective and mild pin-cushion distortions. The algorithm has been tested using dynamic sagittal fluoroscopic videos of the lumbar-sacral region and testing results indicate that the algorithm achieves good tracking performance of lumbar spine vertebrae in fluoroscopic images that exhibit contrast and illumination non-homogeneities as well as noise, with mean root mean square error of less than 0.40 mm under in all test sequences.

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)0.005
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207