MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000388550 · doi:10.1109/embc.2012.6346434

Extraction of liver vessel centerlines under guidance of patient-specific models

2012· article· en· W2000388550 on OpenAlexaff
Xishi Huang, S. Zaheer, Anwar Abdalbari, Thomas Looi, Jing Ren, James M. Drake

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage registrationImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fast extraction of blood vessels of abdominal organs is still a challenging task especially in intra-procedural treatments due to large tissue deformation. In this study, we propose a novel joint vessel extraction and registration framework. This vessel extraction technique is under the guidance of prior knowledge patient specific models. The proposed technique automatically provides correspondence between extracted vessels and pre-procedural vessels, which is important for image guidance such as labeled vessels from pre-procedural models, improves the quality of disease diagnosis using multiple images and follow-up, and provides important information for nonrigid image registration. Another key component in our framework is to dynamically update mapped pre-procedural models by rapidly registering the patient model to the current image based on strain energy, point marks and 3D extracted vessels currently available. We have demonstrated the effectiveness of our technique in extraction of vessels from liver MR images. Validation shows a extraction error of 3.99 mm. This technique has the potential to significantly improve the quality of intra-procedural image guidance, diagnosis of disease and treatment planning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207