MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114388943 · doi:10.1109/icip.2005.1530293

Segmentation of prostate boundaries using regional contrast enhancement

2005· article· en· W2114388943 on OpenAlexaff
Farhang Sahba, Hamid R. Tizhoosh, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligencePixelComputer scienceComputer visionSegmentationContrast (vision)Image segmentationKalman filterBoundary (topology)Fuzzy inference systemGrey levelPattern recognition (psychology)Fuzzy logicMathematicsAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemFuzzy control system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a novel method for automatic prostate segmentation in transrectal ultrasound images is presented. Morphological grey level transformations are first used to generate an image with enough bright intensity around the prostate. This image is then thresholded to produce a binary image. Then by finding and using a point as the inside point for the prostate, a Kalman estimator is used to isolate the prostate boundary from any irrelevant parts and produce a roughly segmented version (as coarse estimation). Consequently, a fuzzy inference system describing regional and gray level information is employed to enhance the contrast of the prostate with respect to the background. Using strong edges obtained from this enhanced image and information from pixels gradients and also the characteristics in the vicinity of the coarse estimation, the final boundary is extracted. A number of experiments are conducted to validate this method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207