MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135390890 · doi:10.1109/tmi.2005.850541

An estimation/correction algorithm for detecting bone edges in CT images

2005· article· en· W2135390890 on OpenAlexaff
Wen Yao, Purang Abolmaesumi, Michael Greenspan, R.E. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMedical Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSegmentationArtificial intelligenceClassification of discontinuitiesComputer sciencePixelImage segmentationComputer visionAlgorithmEdge detectionPoint (geometry)Reliability (semiconductor)MathematicsImage processingPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The normal direction of the bone contour in computed tomography (CT) images provides important anatomical information and can guide segmentation algorithms. Since various bones in CT images have different sizes, and the intensity values of bone pixels are generally nonuniform and noisy, estimation of the normal direction using a single scale is not reliable. We propose a multiscale approach to estimate the normal direction of bone edges. The reliability of the estimation is calculated from the estimated results and, after re-scaling, the reliability is used to further correct the normal direction. The optimal scale at each point is obtained while estimating the normal direction; this scale is then used in a simple edge detector. Our experimental results have shown that use of this estimated/corrected normal direction improves the segmentation quality by decreasing the number of unexpected edges and discontinuities (gaps) of real contours. The corrected normal direction could also be used in postprocessing to delete false edges. Our segmentation algorithm is automatic, and its performance is evaluated on CT images of the human pelvis, leg, and wrist.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Medical ImagingSame topicMedical Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207