Accuracy and variability assessment of a semiautomatic technique for segmentation of the carotid arteries from three‐dimensional ultrasound images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we report on a semiautomatic method for segmentation of three-dimensional (3D) carotid vascular ultrasound (US) images. Our method is based on a dynamic balloon model represented by a triangulated mesh. The mesh is manually placed within the interior of the carotid vessels, then is driven outward until it reaches the vessel wall by applying an inflation force to the mesh. Once the mesh is in close proximity to the vessel wall, it is further deformed using an image-based force, in order to better localize the boundary. Since the method requires manual initialization, there is inherent variability in the position and shape of the final segmented boundary. Using a 3D US image of a patient's carotids, we have examined the local variability in boundary position as the initialization position is varied throughout the interior of the carotid vessels in the 3D image. We have compared the semiautomatic segmentation method to a fully manual segmentation method, and found that the semiautomatic approach is less variable than the intraobserver variability for manual segmentation. We have furthermore examined the accuracy of the semiautomatic method by comparing the average surface to an "ideal" surface, determined by the average manually segmented surface. We have found, in general, good agreement between the semiautomatic and manual segmentation methods. For the 3D US image in question, the mean separation between the average segmented surface and the gold standard was found to be 0.35 mm. The two surfaces were determined to agree with each other, within uncertainty, at 65% of the mesh points comprising the two surfaces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".