MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129466000 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2000.900417

Segmentation of carotid artery in ultrasound images

2002· article· en· W2129466000 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Mao, Jeremy D. Gill, D.B. Downey, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceInitializationComputer scienceActive contour modelComputer visionImage segmentationScale-space segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmentation of carotid artery lumen in 2D and 3D ultrasonography is an important step in evaluating arterial disease severity and finding vulnerable artherosclerotic plaques susceptible to rupture causing stroke. Because of the complexity of anatomical structures, noise as well as the requirement of accurate segmentation, interactions are necessary between observers and computer segmentation process. We describe a segmentation algorithm based on a discrete dynamic model approach with only one seed point to guide the initialization of the deformable model for each lumen cross-section. With one seed, the initial contour of the deformable model is generated using the entropy map of the original image and mathematical morphology operations. The deformable model is driven to fit the lumen contour by an internal force and an external force that are calculated respectively with geometrical properties of deformed contour and with the image gray level features. We also introduce a set of metrics based on a contour probability distribution function for evaluating the accuracy and variability of the interactive segmentation algorithm. These metrics provide a complete performance evaluation of an interactive segmentation algorithm and a means for comparing different algorithm settings. Seven images of the common, internal and external carotid arteries were chosen to test the segmentation algorithm. The average position error and average variability of the boundary segmentation result are 0.2 mm and 0.25 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.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207