Segmentation of Lung Lobes in Isotropic CT Images Using Wavelet Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced multi-slice CT scanners produce isotropic CT images, which have pixel dimensions equal to their image thicknesses of 0.6 mm. Comparing to clinical standard CT images with a thickness of 2.5 - 7.0 mm, isotropic CT images have clearly visible lobar fissures. This poses a challenge for developing automatic algorithms to identify the fissure locations and curvatures. This paper presents a wavelet algorithm that allows automatic identification of the left and right oblique fissures, as well semi-automatic identification of the horizontal fissures. This algorithm took a two-stage approach: (a) adaptive fissure sweeping to find fissure regions; and (b) wavelet transform to identify the fissure locations and curvatures within these fissure regions. Tested on 8, 6 and 6 stacks of isotropic CT images for the left oblique, right oblique and horizontal fissures, respectively, the algorithm yielded an accuracy of 77.1 - 93.6% with strict evaluation criteria. This provides promising potential for developing an automatic algorithm to segment lung lobes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".