MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122352893 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2005.1616500

Slice-Based Prostate Segmentation in 3D US Images Using Continuity Constraint

2005· article· en· W2122352893 on OpenAlexaff
Mingyue Ding, Igor Gyacskov, Xiaping Yuan, Maria Drangova, Aaron Fenster, D.B. Downey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)Robarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceSegmentationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationProstatePattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the diagnosis and therapy of prostate cancer, it is critical to measure the volume of the prostate and locate its boundary. Three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound (3D TRUS) imaging has been demonstrated to be a useful technique to perform such a task. Due to image speckle as well as low contrast in ultrasound images, segmentation of the prostate in 3D US images is challenging. In this paper, we report on the development of an improved slice-based 3D prostate segmentation method. First, we imposed a continuity constraint for the end points of the prostate boundaries in a cross-sectional plane so that a smooth prostate boundary in 2D is obtained. Then, in each 2D slice, we inserted the end points into the vertex list of the initial contour to obtain a new contour, which forces the evolving contour to be driven to the boundary of the prostate. Evaluation demonstrated that our method could segment the prostate in 3D TRUS images more quickly and accurately.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207