MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049541657 · doi:10.1118/1.1287111

Segmentation of carotid artery in ultrasound images: Method development and evaluation technique

2000· article· en· W2049541657 on OpenAlexafffund
Fei Mao, Jeremy D. Gill, Dónal B. Downey, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsSegmentationActive contour modelArtificial intelligenceInitializationComputer scienceImage segmentationComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmentation of carotid artery lumen in two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasonography is an important step in computerized evaluation of arterial disease severity and in finding vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques susceptible to rupture causing stroke. Because of the complexity of anatomical structures, noise as well as the requirement of accurate segmentation, interactions are necessary between observers and the computer segmentation process. In this paper a segmentation process is described based on the deformable model method with only one seed point to guide the initialization of the deformable model for each lumen cross section. With one seed, the initial contour of the deformable model is generated using the entropy map of the original image and mathematical morphology operations. The deformable model is driven to fit the lumen contour by an internal force and an external force that are calculated, respectively, with geometrical properties of deformed contour and with the image gray level features. The evaluation methodology using distance-based and area-based metrics is introduced in this paper. A contour probability distribution (CPD) method for calculating distance-based metrics is introduced. The CPD is obtained by generating contours of the lumen using a set of possible seed locations. The mean contour can be compared to a manual outlined contour to provide accuracy metrics. The variance computed from the CPD can provide metrics of local and global variability. These metrics provide a complete performance evaluation of an interactive segmentation algorithm and a means for comparing different algorithm settings.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations108
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207