Segmentation of the liver from abdominal MR images: a level-set approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The usage of prior knowledge in segmentation of abdominal MR images enables more accurate and comprehensive interpretation about the organ to segment. Prior knowledge about abdominal organ like liver vessels can be employed to get an accurate segmentation of the liver that leads to accurate diagnosis or treatment plan. In this paper, a new method for segmenting the liver from abdominal MR images using liver vessels as prior knowledge is proposed. This paper employs the technique of level set method to segment the liver from MR abdominal images. The speed image used in the level set method is responsible for propagating and stopping region growing at boundaries. As a result of the poor contrast of the MR images between the liver and the surrounding organs i.e. stomach, kidneys, and heart causes leak of the segmented liver to those organs that lead to inaccurate or incorrect segmentation. For that reason, a second speed image is developed, as an extra term to the level set, to control the front propagation at weak edges with the help of the original speed image. The basic idea of the proposed approach is to use the second speed image as a boundary surface which is approximately orthogonal to the area of the leak. The aim of the new speed image is to slow down the level set propagation and prevent the leak in the regions close to liver boundary. The new speed image is a surface created by filling holes to reconstruct the liver surface. These holes are formed as a result of the exit and the entry of the liver vessels, and are considered the main cause of the segmentation leak. The result of the proposed method shows superior outcome than other methods in the literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".