MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126734800 · doi:10.1109/tbme.2005.851500

Automated 3-D Reconstruction of the Surface of Live Early-Stage Amphibian Embryos

2005· article· en· W2126734800 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory Bootsma, G. Wayne Brodland

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligencePoint cloudAlgorithmComputer scienceRANSACImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although three-dimensional (3-D) reconstructions of the surfaces of live embyos are vital to understanding embryo development, morphogenetic tissue movements and other factors have prevented the automation of this task. Here, we report an integrated set of software algorithms that overcome these challenges, making it possible to completely automate the reconstruction of embryo surfaces and other textured surfaces from multiview images. The process involves: 1) building accurate point correspondences using a robust deformable template block matching algorithm; 2) removing outliers using fundamental matrix calculations in conjunction with a RANSAC algorithm; 3) generating 3-D point clouds using a bundle adjustment algorithm that includes camera position and distortion corrections; 4) meshing the point clouds into triangulated surfaces using a Tight Cocone algorithm that produces water tight models; 5) refining surfaces using midpoint insertion and Laplacian smoothing algorithms; and 6) repeating these steps until a measure of convergence G, the rms difference between successive reconstructions, is below a specified threshold. Reconstructions were made of 2.2-mm diameter, neurulation-stage axolotl (amphibian) embryos using 44 multiview images collected with a robotic microscope. A typical final model (sixth iteration) contained 3787 points and 7562 triangles and had an error measure of G = 5.9 microm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Biomedical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207