MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115839263 · doi:10.1109/crv.2005.54

Modeling Prior Shape and Appearance Knowledge in Watershed Segmentat

2005· article· en· W2115839263 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaoxing Li, Ghassan Hamarneh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceWatershedImage segmentationHistogramCluster analysisComputer visionMarket segmentationScale-space segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Segmentation-based object categorizationImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Watershed transform is widely used in image segmentation. However, its shortcomings such as over-segmentation and sensitivity to noise often make it unsuitable as an automatic tool for segmenting medical images. Utilizing prior shape knowledge has been demonstrated to improve robustness of medical image segmentation algorithms. In this paper, we propose a novel method for incorporating prior shape and appearance knowledge into watershed segmentation. Our method is based on iteratively aligning a shape-histogram with the result of an improved k-means clustering algorithm. No human interaction is needed in the whole process. We demonstrate the robustness of our method through segmenting the corpora callosa from a set of 51 brain magnetic resonance (MR) images. Numerical validation of the results is provided.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207