MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146549011 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2013.287

Efficient 3D Endfiring TRUS Prostate Segmentation with Globally Optimized Rotational Symmetry

2013· article· en· W2146549011 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Yuan, Wu Qiu, Martin Rajchl, Eranga Ukwatta, Xue‐Cheng Tai, Aaron Fenster

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate biopsyComputer scienceSegmentationRelaxation (psychology)Artificial intelligenceImage segmentationProstateComputationAlgorithmComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Segmenting 3D end firing transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate images efficiently and accurately is of utmost importance for the planning and guiding 3D TRUS guided prostate biopsy. Poor image quality and imaging artifacts of 3D TRUS images often introduce a challenging task in computation to directly extract the 3D prostate surface. In this work, we propose a novel global optimization approach to delineate 3D prostate boundaries using its rotational resliced images around a specified axis, which properly enforces the inherent rotational symmetry of prostate shapes to jointly adjust a series of 2D slice wise segmentations in the global 3D sense. We show that the introduced challenging combinatorial optimization problem can be solved globally and exactly by means of convex relaxation. In this regard, we propose a novel coupled continuous max-flow model, which not only provides a powerful mathematical tool to analyze the proposed optimization problem but also amounts to a new and efficient duality-based algorithm. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms the state-of-art methods in terms of efficiency, accuracy, reliability and less user-interactions, and reduces the execution time by a factor of 100.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207