Spine Segmentation in Medical Images Using Manifold Embeddings and Higher-Order MRFs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce a novel approach for segmenting articulated spine shape models from medical images. A nonlinear low-dimensional manifold is created from a training set of mesh models to establish the patterns of global shape variations. Local appearance is captured from neighborhoods in the manifold once the overall representation converges. Inference with respect to the manifold and shape parameters is performed using a higher-order Markov random field (HOMRF). Singleton and pairwise potentials measure the support from the global data and shape coherence in manifold space respectively, while higher-order cliques encode geometrical modes of variation to segment each localized vertebra models. Generic feature functions learned from ground-truth data assigns costs to the higher-order terms. Optimization of the model parameters is achieved using efficient linear programming and duality. The resulting model is geometrically intuitive, captures the statistical distribution of the underlying manifold and respects image support. Clinical experiments demonstrated promising results in terms of spine segmentation. Quantitative comparison to expert identification yields an accuracy of 1.6 ± 0.6 mm for CT imaging and of 2.0 ± 0.8 mm for MR imaging, based on the localization of anatomical landmarks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".