Testing and optimization of a semiautomatic prostate boundary segmentation algorithm using virtual operators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image analysis tasks such as size measurement and landmark-based registration require the user to select control points in an image. The output of such algorithms depends on the choice of control points. Since the choice of points varies from one user to the next, the requirement for user input introduces variability into the output of the algorithm. In order to test and/or optimize such algorithms, it is necessary to assess the multiplicity of outputs generated by the algorithm in response to a large set of inputs; however, the input of data requires substantial time and effort from multiple users. In this paper we describe a method to automate the testing and optimization of algorithms using "virtual operators," which consist of a set of spatial distributions describing how actual users select control points in an image. In order to construct the virtual operator, multiple users must repeatedly select control points in the image on which testing is to be performed. Once virtual operators are generated, control points for initializing the algorithm can be generated from them using a random number generator. Although an initial investment of time is required from the users in order to construct the virtual operator, testing and optimization of the algorithm can be done without further user interaction. We illustrate the construction and use of virtual operators by testing and optimizing our prostate boundary segmentation algorithm. The algorithm requires the user to select four control points on the prostate as input.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".