MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015812850 · doi:10.1118/1.1538231

Automatic needle segmentation in three-dimensional ultrasound images using two orthogonal two-dimensional image projections

2003· article· en· W2015812850 on OpenAlexafffund
Mingyue Ding, Héloïse Cardinal, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
Keywords3D ultrasoundComputer visionArtificial intelligenceSegmentationVolume renderingProjection (relational algebra)MathematicsComputer scienceUltrasoundRendering (computer graphics)AlgorithmPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe an algorithm to segment a needle from a three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound image by using two orthogonal two-dimensional (2D) image projections. Not only is the needle more conspicuous in a projected (volume-rendered) image, but its direction in 3D lies in the plane defined by the projection direction and the needle direction in the projected 2D image. Hence, using two such projections, the 3D vector describing the needle direction lies along the intersection of the two corresponding planes. Thus, the task of 3D needle segmentation is reduced to two 2D needle segmentations. For improved accuracy and robustness, we use orthogonal projection directions (both orthogonal to a given a priori estimate of the needle direction), and use volume cropping and Gaussian transfer functions to remove complex background from the 2D projection images. To evaluate our algorithm, we tested it with 3D ultrasound images of agar and turkey breast phantoms. Using a 500 MHz personal computer equipped with a commercial volume-rendering card, we found that our 3D needle segmentation algorithm performed in near real time (about 10 fps) with a root-mean-square accuracy in needle length and endpoint coordinates of better than 0.8 mm, and about 0.5 mm on average, for needles lengths in the 3D image from 4.0 mm to 36.7 mm.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicPhotoacoustic and Ultrasonic ImagingFrench-language works237,207