Segmentation of the pelvic girdle in pediatric computed tomographic images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification, localization, and segmentation of the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic organs are important steps in computer-aided diagnosis, treatment planning, landmarking, and content-based retrieval of biomedical images. In this context, to aid the identification of the lower abdominal organs, to assist in image-guided surgery or treatment planning, to separate the abdominal cavity from the lower pelvic region, and to improve the process of localization of abdominal pathology, we propose methods to identify and segment automatically the pelvic girdle in pediatric computed tomographic (CT) images. The opening-by-reconstruction procedure was used for segmentation of the pelvic girdle. The methods include procedures to represent the pelvic surface by a quadratic model using linear least-squares estimation and to refine the model using deformable contours. The result of segmentation of the pelvic girdle was assessed quantitatively and qualitatively by comparing with the segmentation performed independently by a radiologist. On the basis of quantitative analysis with 13 CT exams of six patients, including a total of 277 slices with the pelvis, the average Hausdorff distance was determined to be 5.95 mm, and the average mean distance to the closest point (MDCP) was 0.53 mm. The average MDCP is comparable to the size of one pixel, on the average.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".