MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118173174 · doi:10.5430/jbgc.v2n2p72

Compensation of the non-uniformity of back-lighting sources when digitising X-ray films for video-densitometric measures

2012· article· en· W2118173174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisabetta M. Zanetti, Giordano Franceschini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Graphics and Computing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtractionCompensation (psychology)BacklightStandard deviationPosition (finance)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionOpticsMathematicsPhysicsLiquid-crystal displayStatisticsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: computerised image analysis and the building of electronic archives require the digitisation of x-ray films performed in the past, when direct digitisation was not yet available. Different techniques can be used, based on laser scanning or camera acquisition; both can be heavily impaired by the non-uniformity of the backlighting source. This work wants to develop a methodology, able to reduce this noise source. Methods: The introduced algorithm is a step beyond the common compensation of backlighting non-uniformity through subtraction; in fact, each grey level is corrected taking into account not only its position on the back-lighting system and its raw value, but also the interaction between these two parameters. Results: Given a certain acquisition system, the introduced algorithm has allowed to reduce the maximum grey level standard deviation, read on uniform grey level films, from 9.15 to 2.00 (on a scale from 0 to 255) against traditional subtraction techniques that achieved a minimum standard deviation equal to 5.39. Conclusions: The employed algorithm has proved to be effective in order to obtain same measured grey levels, almost independent from the position of the radiograph on the back-lighting system, and therefore makes x ray image digitisation more accurate. Only 26.4% had FADS prior to 20 weeks. Sonogram performed anytime during the pregnancy could detect 55.9% (62 of 121)) of congenital malformations suggesting that it was missed in 44.1% cases. Those who submitted for FADS between 14 – 24 weeks of pregnancy, the malformations were detected in 53.2% of 66 pregnancies. The majority (45.2%) of anomalies diagnosed by ultrasonography were neural tube defects.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Graphics and ComputingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207