MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128089874 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2002.1114849

Flux maximizing geometric flows

2002· article· en· W2128089874 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Vasilevskiy, Kaleem Siddiqi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage segmentationSurface (topology)Artificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceComputer visionImage (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Field (mathematics)Level set (data structures)AlgorithmMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several geometric active contour models have been proposed for segmentation in computer vision and image analysis. The essential idea is to evolve a curve (in 2D) or a surface (in 3D) under constraints from image forces so that it clings to features of interest in an intensity image. Recent variations on this theme take into account properties of enclosed regions and allow for multiple curves or surfaces to be simultaneously represented. However, it is still unclear how to apply these techniques to images of narrow elongated structures, such as blood vessels, where intensity contrast may be low and reliable region statistics cannot be computed. To address this problem, we derive the gradient flows which maximize the rate of increase of flux of an appropriate vector field through a curve (in 2D) or a surface (in 3D). The key idea is to exploit the direction of the vector field along with its magnitude. The calculations lead to a simple and elegant interpretation which is essentially parameter free and has the same form in both dimensions. We illustrate its advantages with several level-set-based segmentations of 2D and 3D angiography images of blood vessels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations381
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207