MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042680362 · doi:10.1186/1477-7827-6-33

Level set segmentation of bovine corpora lutea in ex situ ovarian ultrasound images

2008· article· en· W2042680362 on OpenAlexafffund
Brennan J Rusnell, Roger A. Pierson, Jaswant Singh, Mark Eramian

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Biology and Endocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsSegmentationIn situEx vivoArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBiologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the viability of level set image segmentation methods for the detection of corpora lutea (corpus luteum, CL) boundaries in ultrasonographic ovarian images. It was hypothesized that bovine CL boundaries could be located within 1-2 mm by a level set image segmentation methodology. METHODS: Level set methods embed a 2D contour in a 3D surface and evolve that surface over time according to an image-dependent speed function. A speed function suitable for segmentation of CL's in ovarian ultrasound images was developed. An initial contour was manually placed and contour evolution was allowed to proceed until the rate of change of the area was sufficiently small. The method was tested on ovarian ultrasonographic images (n = 8) obtained ex situ. A expert in ovarian ultrasound interpretation delineated CL boundaries manually to serve as a "ground truth". Accuracy of the level set segmentation algorithm was determined by comparing semi-automatically determined contours with ground truth contours using the mean absolute difference (MAD), root mean squared difference (RMSD), Hausdorff distance (HD), sensitivity, and specificity metrics. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The mean MAD was 0.87 mm (sigma = 0.36 mm), RMSD was 1.1 mm (sigma = 0.47 mm), and HD was 3.4 mm (sigma = 2.0 mm) indicating that, on average, boundaries were accurate within 1-2 mm, however, deviations in excess of 3 mm from the ground truth were observed indicating under- or over-expansion of the contour. Mean sensitivity and specificity were 0.814 (sigma = 0.171) and 0.990 (sigma = 0.00786), respectively, indicating that CLs were consistently undersegmented but rarely did the contour interior include pixels that were judged by the human expert not to be part of the CL. It was observed that in localities where gradient magnitudes within the CL were strong due to high contrast speckle, contour expansion stopped too early. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis that level set segmentation can be accurate to within 1-2 mm on average was supported, although there can be some greater deviation. The method was robust to boundary leakage as evidenced by the high specificity. It was concluded that the technique is promising and that a suitable data set of human ovarian images should be obtained to conduct further studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Biology and EndocrinologySame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207