MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118853360 · doi:10.1117/12.654160

Brain extraction using geodesic active contours

2006· article· en· W2118853360 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Huang, Rafeef Abugharbieh, Roger Tam, Anthony Traboulsee

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePreprocessorVoxelGeodesicComputer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Cortex (anatomy)MathematicsNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extracting the brain cortex from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) head scans is an essential preprocessing step of which the accuracy greatly affects subsequent image analysis. The currently popular Brain Extraction Tool (BET) produces a brain mask which may be too smooth for practical use. This paper presents a novel brain extraction tool based on three-dimensional geodesic active contours, connected component analysis and mathematical morphology. Based on user-specified intensity and contrast levels, the proposed algorithm allows an active contour to evolve naturally and extract the brain cortex. Experiments on synthetic MRI data and scanned coronal and axial MRI image volumes indicate successful extraction of tight perimeters surrounding the brain cortex. Quantitative evaluations on both synthetic phantoms and manually labeled data resulted in better accuracy than BET in terms of true and false voxel assignment. Based on these results, we illustrate that our brain extraction tool is a robust and accurate approach for the challenging task of automatically extracting the brain cortex in MRI data.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207