A knowledge-based approach to automatic detection of the spinal cord in CT images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate planning of radiation therapy entails the definition of treatment volumes and a clear delimitation of normal tissue of which unnecessary exposure should be prevented. The spinal cord is a radiosensitive organ, which should be precisely identified because an overexposure to radiation may lead to undesired complications for the patient such as neuronal disfunction or paralysis. In this paper, a knowledge-based approach to identifying the spinal cord in computed tomography images of the thorax is presented. The approach relies on a knowledge-base which consists of a so-called anatomical structures map (ASM) and a task-oriented architecture called the plan solver. The ASM contains a frame-like knowledge representation of the macro-anatomy in the human thorax. The plan solver is responsible for determining the position, orientation and size of the structures of interest to radiation therapy. The plan solver relies on a number of image processing operators. Some are so-called atomic (e.g., thresholding and snakes) whereas others are composite. The whole system has been implemented on a standard PC. Experiments performed on the image material from 23 patients show that the approach results in a reliable recognition of the spinal cord (92% accuracy) and the spinal canal (85% accuracy). The lamina is more problematic to locate correctly (accuracy 72%). The position of the outer thorax is always determined correctly.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".