MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057057879 · doi:10.1117/12.466907

<title>Automatic needle segmentation in 3D ultrasound images</title>

2002· article· en· W2057057879 on OpenAlexafffund
Mingyue Ding, Héloïse Cardinal, Weiguang Guan, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoft Robotics and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer visionComputer science3D ultrasoundArtificial intelligenceProjection (relational algebra)Orientation (vector space)SegmentationA priori and a posterioriVolume (thermodynamics)Noise (video)Position (finance)Image segmentationUltrasoundImage (mathematics)MathematicsAcousticsAlgorithmPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose to use 2D image projections to automatically segment a needle in a 3D ultrasound image. This approach is motivated by the twin observations that the needle is more conspicuous in a projected image, and its projected area is a minimum when the rays are cast parallel to the needle direction. To avoid the computational burden of an exhaustive 2D search for the needle direction, a faster 1D search procedure is proposed. First, a plane which contains the needle direction is determined by the initial projection direction and the (estimated) direction of the needle in the corresponding projection image. Subsequently, an adaptive 1D search technique is used to adjust the projection direction iteratively until the projected needle area is minimized. In order to remove noise and complex background structure from the projection images, a priori information about the needle position and orientation is used to crop the 3D volume, and the cropped volume is rendered with Gaussian transfer functions. We have evaluated this approach experimentally using agar and turkey breast phantoms. The results show that it can find the 3D needle orientation within 1 degree, in about 1 to 3 seconds on a 500 MHz computer.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.009

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicSoft Robotics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207