MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083534882 · doi:10.1088/0031-9155/51/7/014

Prostate segmentation by feature enhancement using domain knowledge and adaptive region based operations

2006· article· en· W2083534882 on OpenAlexafffund
Nuwan D. Nanayakkara, Jagath Samarabandu, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer visionPixelBrachytherapyFeature (linguistics)Image segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineRadiologyRadiation therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of prostate location and volume is essential in determining a dose plan for ultrasound-guided brachytherapy, a common prostate cancer treatment. However, manual segmentation is difficult, time consuming and prone to variability. In this paper, we present a semi-automatic discrete dynamic contour (DDC) model based image segmentation algorithm, which effectively combines a multi-resolution model refinement procedure together with the domain knowledge of the image class. The segmentation begins on a low-resolution image by defining a closed DDC model by the user. This contour model is then deformed progressively towards higher resolution images. We use a combination of a domain knowledge based fuzzy inference system (FIS) and a set of adaptive region based operators to enhance the edges of interest and to govern the model refinement using a DDC model. The automatic vertex relocation process, embedded into the algorithm, relocates deviated contour points back onto the actual prostate boundary, eliminating the need of user interaction after initialization. The accuracy of the prostate boundary produced by the proposed algorithm was evaluated by comparing it with a manually outlined contour by an expert observer. We used this algorithm to segment the prostate boundary in 114 2D transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images of six patients scheduled for brachytherapy. The mean distance between the contours produced by the proposed algorithm and the manual outlines was 2.70 +/- 0.51 pixels (0.54 +/- 0.10 mm). We also showed that the algorithm is insensitive to variations of the initial model and parameter values, thus increasing the accuracy and reproducibility of the resulting boundaries in the presence of noise and artefacts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and BiologySame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207