MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2138296888 · doi:10.1109/isspit.2006.270855

DTMRI Segmentation using DT-Snakes and DT-Livewire

2006· article· en· W2138296888 on OpenAlexaff
Ghassan Hamarneh, Judith Hradsky

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingSegmentationInterpolation (computer graphics)Tensor (intrinsic definition)Image segmentationDiffusion MRIDivergence (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsScalar (mathematics)Computer visionComputer scienceImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmGeometryMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we extend two popular classical scalar medical image segmentation techniques to diffusion tensor magnetic resonance images (DTMRI). We propose DT-snakes and DT-livewire through modifying the external image forces in snakes and cost terms in livewire. The new forces and cost terms are derived from and operate on a DT field rather than a scalar image. This is achieved by making use of recent advances in DT calculus and DT dissimilarity measures, as well as DT smoothing and DT interpolation. Proper quantification of tensor dissimilarity allows for defining spatial gradient vectors and gradient magnitudes of DT fields, an essential component for attracting snakes or livewire to target boundaries in DT images. DT calculus enables weighted averaging of tensors which is essential for both pre-smoothing of DT images prior to segmentation, as well as interpolation of tensors on non-grid positions in the image. We evaluate different recent DT tensor dissimilarity metrics including the Log-Euclidean and the square root of the J-divergence. We present qualitative and quantitative DT segmentation results on both synthetic and real cardiac and brain DTMRI data

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.293 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→