A study on using texture analysis methods for identifying lobar fissure regions in isotropic CT images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major hurdle for segmenting lung lobes in computed tomographic (CT) images is to identify fissure regions, which encase lobar fissures. Accurate identification of these regions is difficult due to the variable shape and appearance of the fissures, along with the low contrast and high noise associated with CT images. This paper studies the effectiveness of two texture analysis methods - the gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) and the gray level run length matrix (GLRLM) - in identifying fissure regions from isotropic CT image stacks. To classify GLCM and GLRLM texture features, we applied a feed-forward back-propagation neural network and achieved the best classification accuracy utilizing 16 quantized levels for computing the GLCM and GLRLM texture features and 64 neurons in the input/hidden layers of the neural network. Tested on isotropic CT image stacks of 24 patients with the pathologic lungs, we obtained accuracies of 86% and 87% for identifying fissure regions using the GLCM and GLRLM methods, respectively. These accuracies compare favorably with surgeons/radiologists' accuracy of 80% for identifying fissure regions in clinical settings. This shows promising potential for segmenting lung lobes using the GLCM and GLRLM 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".