Segmentation in Ultrasonic<i>B</i>-Mode Images of Healthy Carotid Arteries Using Mixtures of Nakagami Distributions and Stochastic Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this work is to perform a segmentation of the intimamedia thickness (IMT) of carotid arteries in view of computing various dynamical properties of that tissue, such as the elasticity distribution (elastogram). The echogenicity of a region of interest comprising the intima-media layers, the lumen, and the adventitia in an ultrasonic B-mode image is modeled by a mixture of three Nakagami distributions. In a first step, we compute the maximum a posteriori estimator of the proposed model, using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. We then compute the optimal segmentation based on the estimated distributions as well as a statistical prior for disease-free IMT using a variant of the exploration/selection (ES) algorithm. Convergence of the ES algorithm to the optimal solution is assured asymptotically and is independent of the initial solution. In particular, our method is well suited to a semi-automatic context that requires minimal manual initialization. Tests of the proposed method on 30 sequences of ultrasonic B-mode images of presumably disease-free control subjects are reported. They suggest that the semi-automatic segmentations obtained by the proposed method are within the variability of the manual segmentations of two experts.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".