Quantification and visualization of carotid segmentation accuracy and precision using a 2D standardized carotid map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a framework for vascular image segmentation evaluation. Since the size of vessel wall and plaque burden is defined by the lumen and wall boundaries in vascular segmentation, these two boundaries should be considered as a pair in statistical evaluation of a segmentation algorithm. This work proposed statistical metrics to evaluate the difference of local vessel wall thickness (VWT) produced by manual and algorithm-based semi-automatic segmentation methods (ΔT) with the local segmentation standard deviation of the wall and lumen boundaries considered. ΔT was further approximately decomposed into the local wall and lumen boundary differences (ΔW and ΔL respectively) in order to provide information regarding which of the wall and lumen segmentation errors contribute more to the VWT difference. In this study, the lumen and wall boundaries in 3D carotid ultrasound images acquired for 21 subjects were each segmented five times manually and by a level-set segmentation algorithm. The (absolute) difference measures (i.e., ΔT, ΔW, ΔL and their absolute values) and the pooled local standard deviation of manually and algorithmically segmented wall and lumen boundaries were computed for each subject and represented in a 2D standardized map. The local accuracy and variability of the segmentation algorithm at each point can be quantified by the average of these metrics for the whole group of subjects and visualized on the 2D standardized map. Based on the results shown on the 2D standardized map, a variety of strategies, such as adding anchor points and adjusting weights of different forces in the algorithm, can be introduced to improve the accuracy and variability of the algorithm.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".