MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060278501 · doi:10.1117/12.596148

3D live-wire-based semi-automatic segmentation of medical images

2005· article· en· W2060278501 on OpenAlexaff
Ghassan Hamarneh, Johnson Yang, Chris McIntosh, Morgan G. I. Langille

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage segmentationAutomationVisualizationSet (abstract data type)Medical imagingMarket segmentationPath (computing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmenting anatomical structures from medical images is usually one of the most important initial steps in many applications, including visualization, computer-aided diagnosis, and morphometric analysis. Manual 2D segmentation suffers from operator variability and is tedious and time-consuming. These disadvantages are accentuated in 3D applications and, the additional requirement of producing intuitive displays to integrate 3D information for the user, makes manual segmentation even less approachable in 3D. Robust, automatic medical image segmentation in 2D to 3D remains an open problem caused particularly by sensitivity to low-level parameters of segmentation algorithms. Semi-automatic techniques present possible balanced solution where automation focuses on low-level computing-intensive tasks that can be hidden from the user, while manual inter- vention captures high-level expert knowledge nontrivial to capture algorithmically. In this paper we present a 3D extension to the 2D semi-automatic live-wire technique. Live-wire based contours generated semi-automatically on a selected set of slices are used as seed points on new unseen slices in different orientations. The seed points are calculated from intersections of user-based live-wire techniques with new slices. Our algorithm includes a step for ordering the live-wire seed points in the new slices, which is essential for subsequent multi-stage optimal path calculation. We present results of automatically detecting contours in new slices in 3D volumes from a variety of medical images.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207