A Model-Based Validation Scheme for Organ Segmentation in CT Scan Volumes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we propose a novel approach for accurate 3-D organ segmentation in the CT scan volumes. Instead of using the organ's prior information directly in the segmentation process, here we utilize the knowledge of the organ to validate a large number of potential segmentation outcomes that are generated by a generic segmentation process. For this, an organ space is generated based on the principal component analysis approach using which the fidelity of each segment to the organ is measured. We detail applications of the proposed method for the 3-D segmentation of human kidney and liver in computed tomography scan volumes. For evaluation, the public database of the MICCAI's 2007 grand challenge workshop has been incorporated. Implementation results show an average Dice similarity measure of 0.90 for the segmentation of the kidney. For the liver segmentation, the proposed algorithm achieves an average volume overlap error of 8.7 % and an average surface distance of 1.51 mm.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it