MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143272559 · doi:10.1109/tip.2010.2048965

A Novel Rotationally Invariant Region-Based Hidden Markov Model for Efficient 3-D Image Segmentation

2010· article· en· W2143272559 on OpenAlexaff
Albert Huang, Rafeef Abugharbieh, Roger Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage segmentationArtificial intelligenceInvariant (physics)SegmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Hidden Markov modelImage processingComputer scienceComputer visionScale-space segmentationMarkov chainMarkov processMathematicsImage (mathematics)StatisticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel 3-D region-based hidden Markov model (rbHMM) for efficient unsupervised 3-D image segmentation. Our contribution is twofold. First, rbHMM employs a more efficient representation of the image data than current state-of-the-art HMM-based approaches that are based on either voxels or rectangular lattices/grids, thus resulting in a faster optimization process. Second, our proposed novel tree-structured parameter estimation algorithm for the rbHMM provides a locally optimal data labeling that is invariant to object rotation, which is a highly valuable property in segmentation tasks, especially in medical imaging where the segmentation results need to be independent of patient positioning in scanners in order to minimize methodological variability in data analysis. We demonstrate the advantages of our proposed technique over grid-based HMMs by validating on synthetic images of geometric shapes as well as both simulated and clinical brain MRI scans. For the geometric shapes data, our method produced consistently accurate segmentation results that were also invariant to object rotation. For the brain MRI data, our white matter and gray matter segmentation resulted in substantially higher robustness and accuracy levels with improved Dice similarity indices of 4.60% (p=0.0022) and 7.71% , respectively.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207