MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144937751 · doi:10.1109/isspit.2006.270795

An Elliptical Level Set Method for Automatic TRUS Prostate Image Segmentation

2006· article· en· W2144937751 on OpenAlexafffund
Nezamoddin N. Kachouie, Paul Fieguth, Shahryar Rahnamayan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Council
KeywordsInitializationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceImage segmentationComputer visionSegmentationLevel set (data structures)ProstateSpeckle noiseHistogramSpeckle patternLevel set methodPattern recognition (psychology)MedicineImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important tasks in prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment is segmentation of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate images. Due to the large volumes of TRUS prostate images, automatic segmentation systems are mandatory. Weak prostate boundaries, speckle noise and the short range of gray levels make the task more challenging and difficult. Deformable models have been considered as an effective approach for semi-automatic prostate segmentation. However the main problem toward a fully automatic segmentation system using deformable models is initialization of seed or control points. In this paper an automatic level set prostate segmentation is presented. A classification method is employed to locate the approximate location of the prostate which is used to initiate the proposed elliptical level set contour. The deformations of the level set are guided by a velocity function which is derived using the TRUS prostate image histogram

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207