Fast prostate segmentation in 3D TRUS images based on continuity constraint using an autoregressive model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article a new slice-based 3D prostate segmentation method based on a continuity constraint, implemented as an autoregressive (AR) model is described. In order to decrease the propagated segmentation error produced by the slice-based 3D segmentation method, a continuity constraint was imposed in the prostate segmentation algorithm. A 3D ultrasound image was segmented using the slice-based segmentation method. Then, a cross-sectional profile of the resulting contours was obtained by intersecting the 2D segmented contours with a coronal plane passing through the midpoint of the manually identified rotational axis, which is considered to be the approximate center of the prostate. On the coronal cross-sectional plane, these intersections form a set of radial lines directed from the center of the prostate. The lengths of these radial lines were smoothed using an AR model. Slice-based 3D segmentations were performed in the clockwise and in the anticlockwise directions, where clockwise and anticlockwise are defined with respect to the propagation directions on the coronal view. This resulted in two different segmentations for each 2D slice. For each pair of unmatched segments, in which the distance between the contour generated clockwise and that generated anticlockwise was greater than 4 mm, a method was used to select the optimal contour. Experiments performed using 3D prostate ultrasound images of nine patients demonstrated that the proposed method produced accurate 3D prostate boundaries without manual editing. The average distance between the proposed method and manual segmentation was 1.29 mm. The average intraobserver coefficient of variation (i.e., the standard deviation divided by the average volume) of the boundaries segmented by the proposed method was 1.6%. The average segmentation time of a 352 x 379 x 704 image on a Pentium IV 2.8 GHz PC was 10 s.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".