Prostate segmentation in 3D US images using the cardinal-spline-based discrete dynamic contour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our slice-based 3D prostate segmentation method comprises of three steps. 2) Boundary deformation. First, we chose more than three points on the boundary of the prostate along one direction and used a Cardinal-spline to interpolate an initial prostate boundary, which has been divided into vertices. At each vertex, the internal and external forces were calculated. These forces drived the evolving contour to the true boundary of the prostate. 3) 3D prostate segmentation. We propoaged the final contour in the initial slice to adjacent slices and refined them until all prostate boundaries of slices are segmented. Finally, we calculated the volume of the prostate from a 3D mesh surface of the prostate. Experiments with the 3D US images of six patient prostates demonstrated that our method efficiently avoided being trapped in local minima and the average percentage error was 4.8%. In 3D prostate segementation, the average percentage error in measuring the prostate volume is less than 5%, with respect to the manual planimetry.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".