A semi‐automatic technique for measurement of arterial wall from black blood MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black blood magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a popular technique for imaging the artery wall in vivo. Its noninvasiveness and high resolution make it ideal for studying the progression of early atherosclerosis in normal volunteers or asymptomatic patients with mild disease. However, the operator variability inherent in the manual measurement of vessel wall area from MR images hinders the reliable detection of relatively small changes in the artery wall over time. In this paper we present a semi-automatic method for segmenting the inner and outer boundary of the artery wall, and evaluate its operator variability using analysis of variance (ANOVA). In our approach, a discrete dynamic contour is approximately initialized by an operator, deformed to the inner boundary, dilated, and then deformed to the outer boundary. A group of four operators performed repeated measurements on 12 images from normal human subjects using both our semiautomatic technique and a manual approach. Results from the ANOVA indicate that the inter-operator standard error of measurement (SEM) of total wall area decreased from 3.254 mm2 (manual) to 1.293 mm2 (semi-automatic), and the intra-operator SEM decreased from 3.005 mm2 to 0.958 mm2. Operator reliability coefficients increased from less than 69% to more than 91% (inter-operator) and 95% (intra-operator). The minimum detectable change in wall area improved from more than 8.32 mm2 (intra-operator, manual) to less than 3.59 mm2 (inter-operator, semi-automatic), suggesting that it is better to have multiple operators measure wall area with our semi-automatic technique than to have a single operator make repeated measurements manually. Similar improvements in wall thickness and lumen radius measurements were also recorded. Since the semi-automatic technique has effectively ruled out the effect of the operator on these measurements, it may be possible to use such techniques to expand prospective studies of atherogenesis to multiple centers so as to increase access to real patient data without sacrificing reliability.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".