MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063619199 · doi:10.1118/1.4800797

Three‐dimensional segmentation of three‐dimensional ultrasound carotid atherosclerosis using sparse field level sets

2013· article· en· W2063619199 on OpenAlexafffund
Eranga Ukwatta, Jing Yuan, Daniel Buchanan, Bernard Chiu, Joseph Awad, Wu Qiu, Grace Párraga, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSegmentationInitializationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBoundary (topology)Computer visionImage segmentationUltrasoundCommon carotid arteryLevel set (data structures)Pattern recognition (psychology)RadiologyMedicineCarotid arteriesMathematicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Three-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS) vessel wall volume (VWV) provides a 3D measurement of carotid artery wall remodeling and atherosclerotic plaque and is sensitive to temporal changes of carotid plaque burden. Unfortunately, although 3DUS VWV provides many advantages compared to measurements of arterial wall thickening or plaque alone, it is still not widely used in research or clinical practice because of the inordinate amount of time required to train observers and to generate 3DUS VWV measurements. In this regard, semiautomated methods for segmentation of the carotid media-adventitia boundary (MAB) and the lumen-intima boundary (LIB) would greatly improve the time to train observers and for them to generate 3DUS VWV measurements with high reproducibility. METHODS: The authors describe a 3D algorithm based on a modified sparse field level set method for segmenting the MAB and LIB of the common carotid artery (CCA) from 3DUS images. To the authors' knowledge, the proposed algorithm is the first direct 3D segmentation method, which has been validated for segmenting both the carotid MAB and the LIB from 3DUS images for the purpose of computing VWV. Initialization of the algorithm requires the observer to choose anchor points on each boundary on a set of transverse slices with a user-specified interslice distance (ISD), in which larger ISD requires fewer user interactions than smaller ISD. To address the challenges of the MAB and LIB segmentations from 3DUS images, the authors integrated regional- and boundary-based image statistics, expert initializations, and anatomically motivated boundary separation into the segmentation. The MAB is segmented by incorporating local region-based image information, image gradients, and the anchor points provided by the observer. Moreover, a local smoothness term is utilized to maintain the smooth surface of the MAB. The LIB is segmented by constraining its evolution using the already segmented surface of the MAB, in addition to the global region-based information and the anchor points. The algorithm-generated surfaces were sliced and evaluated with respect to manual segmentations on a slice-by-slice basis using 21 3DUS images. RESULTS: The authors used ISD of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10 mm for algorithm initialization to generate segmentation results. The algorithm-generated accuracy and intraobserver variability results are comparable to the previous methods, but with fewer user interactions. For example, for the ISD of 3 mm, the algorithm yielded an average Dice coefficient of 94.4% ± 2.2% and 90.6% ± 5.0% for the MAB and LIB and the coefficient of variation of 6.8% for computing the VWV of the CCA, while requiring only 1.72 min (vs 8.3 min for manual segmentation) for a 3DUS image. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed 3D semiautomated segmentation algorithm yielded high-accuracy and high-repeatability, while reducing the expert interaction required for initializing the algorithm than the previous 2D methods.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations44
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207