Validation of bone segmentation and improved 3-D registration using contour coherency in CT data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method is presented to validate the segmentation of computed tomography (CT) image sequences, and improve the accuracy and efficiency of the subsequent registration of the three-dimensional surfaces that are reconstructed from the segmented slices. The method compares the shapes of contours extracted from neighborhoods of slices in CT stacks of tibias. The bone is first segmented by an automatic segmentation technique, and the bone contour for each slice is parameterized as a one-dimensional function of normalized arc length versus inscribed angle. These functions are represented as vectors within a K-dimensional space comprising the first K amplitude coefficients of their Fourier Descriptors. The similarity or coherency of neighboring contours is measured by comparing statistical properties of their vector representations within this space. Experimentation has demonstrated this technique to be very effective at identifying low-coherency segmentations. Compared with experienced human operators, in a set of 23 CT stacks (1,633 slices), the method correctly detected 87.5% and 80% of the low-coherency and 97.7% and 95.5% of the high coherency segmentations, respectively from two different automatic segmentation techniques. Removal of the automatically detected low-coherency segmentations also significantly improved the accuracy and time efficiency of the registration of 3-D bone surface models. The registration error was reduced by over 500% (i.e., a factor of 5) and 280%, and the computational performance was improved by 540% and 791% for the two respective segmentation 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".