MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116161009 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2007.4353617

A Medical Texture Local Binary Pattern For TRUS Prostate Segmentation

2007· article· en· W2116161009 on OpenAlexaff
Nezamoddin N. Kachouie, Paul Fieguth

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal binary patternsArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceComputer visionImage segmentationImage textureMedical imagingSpeckle noiseSpeckle patternPattern recognition (psychology)HistogramImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment rely on segmentation of Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) prostate images. This is a challenging and difficult task dut to weak prostate boundaries, speckle noise and the short range of gray levels. Advances in digital imaging techniques have made it possible the acquisition of large volumes of TRUS prostate images so that there is considerable demand for automated segmentation systems. Local Binary Pattern (LBP) has been used for texture segmentation and analysis. Despite its promising performance for texture classification it has not yet been considered for TRUS prostate segmentation. In this paper we introduce a medical texture local binary pattern operator designed for applications of medical imaging where different tissues or micro organisms might maintain extremely weak underlying textures that make it impossible or very difficult for ordinary texture analysis approaches to classify them. In the proposed method the deformations of a level set contour are controlled based on the medical texture local binary pattern operator.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConference proceedingsSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207